▶ Watch the original YouTube video
Borrowing or Stealing? Analyzing the Ethical Contradiction at the Heart of Arrietty
After 15 years of analyzing Studio Ghibli’s “The Borrowers” (Arrietty), a longtime fan examines the fundamental ethical paradox at the film’s core: whether the tiny protagonists are genuinely borrowing household items or simply stealing them. The analysis reveals how the film deliberately presents an unresolved moral ambiguity that challenges viewers’ assumptions about survival, theft, and the relativity of ethics.
What Happened
When “The Borrowers” (Arrietty) premiered in 2010, audiences encountered a charming fantasy about tiny people who survive by taking items from human homes. However, beneath the film’s whimsical surface lies a persistent question: are Arrietty and her family actually borrowing these items, or are they stealing them? The original Japanese blog post, written by a devoted Ghibli fan with 15 years of analytical experience, explores this contradiction in depth by comparing the film to its source material, analyzing online viewer reactions, and examining the ethical frameworks presented throughout the narrative.
Why It Matters
This analysis matters because it reveals how Studio Ghibli deliberately embedded an unresolved ethical paradox into a beloved film. The contradiction between “borrowing” and “stealing” reflects broader questions about survival, morality, and perspective. By examining how different characters and viewers interpret the same actions differently, the analysis demonstrates that ethics are not absolute but depend on one’s position and values. In an era increasingly focused on diversity and ethical complexity, understanding how art presents moral ambiguity becomes crucial to appreciating sophisticated storytelling.
Background
“The Borrowers” is based on Mary Norton’s 1952 novel “The Borrowers,” which introduced the concept of tiny people living secretly in human homes by taking small items. Studio Ghibli’s 2010 film adaptation, directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, significantly softened the moral stance of the source material. In Norton’s original work, the borrowers explicitly view humans as existing to serve them—a deeply arrogant worldview. The Ghibli adaptation, by contrast, portrays Arrietty as fearful and cautious around humans, suggesting she feels guilt about her family’s actions. This shift indicates that the studio recognized the ethical problems in the source material and attempted to modify them for contemporary audiences.
Key Points
- The Human Perspective: From a human viewpoint, items taken from the house are never returned, making this objectively theft rather than borrowing.
- The Borrowers’ Perspective: Arrietty and her family view their actions as a survival strategy passed down through generations, taking only what they need to live.
- Source Material Differences: Mary Norton’s original borrowers are far more arrogant, explicitly believing humans exist to serve them, whereas Ghibli’s version shows remorse and caution.
- Ethical Ambiguity: The film intentionally—or unintentionally—embeds fundamental definitional ambiguity about whether the actions constitute borrowing or theft.
- The Relativity of Ethics: What humans perceive as theft, borrowers perceive as traditional livelihood; the film explores how morality depends on perspective.
- Knowledge and Responsibility: Unlike mindless animals, the borrowers possess intelligence, which arguably increases their moral responsibility for their actions.
Timeline
- 1952: Mary Norton publishes “The Borrowers,” establishing the original narrative with a more ethically problematic worldview.
- 2004: The analyst first experiences ethical discomfort with Ghibli’s “Howl’s Moving Castle,” noting how Howl’s theft of a queen’s hair goes largely unexamined morally.
- 2010: “The Borrowers” (Arrietty) releases in theaters; the analyst experiences immediate discomfort with the “borrowing” concept and debates it with friends for over an hour.
- 2015: The analyst reads Mary Norton’s original novel and discovers the significant ethical differences between source and adaptation.
- 2024: The analyst reflects on 15 years of experience and recognizes how modern surveillance technology would make the borrowers’ lifestyle impossible in contemporary settings.
Perspectives
The Human Household Perspective: From the perspective of the people living in the house, items disappear without permission and are never returned. Sugar, cookies, and soap vanish, creating a practical problem. This is, by definition, theft. The humans never agreed to this arrangement, and they receive no compensation or explanation.
The Borrowers’ Perspective: Arrietty’s family operates under a survival framework developed over generations. They take only what they need, avoid causing major damage, and view their actions as a sustainable way to coexist with humans. In their worldview, they are not stealing but practicing a traditional livelihood that has allowed their species to survive.
The Comparative Analysis Perspective: Examining other Ghibli films reveals inconsistent moral frameworks. In “Spirited Away,” the parents’ theft of food is explicitly punished—they are transformed into pigs. In “Howl’s Moving Castle,” Howl’s theft of a queen’s hair is barely addressed morally. In “Arrietty,” the moral evaluation remains deliberately ambiguous. This suggests Studio Ghibli distinguishes between theft motivated by greed versus theft motivated by survival.
The Online Viewer Perspective: YouTube comments reveal diverse reactions. Many viewers directly question whether this constitutes borrowing or stealing. Some make sardonic observations like “they’re borrowing it forever.” Others note that the borrowers are “worse than mice” because their intelligence allows them to steal more effectively while leaving fewer traces. Yet others dismiss ethical concerns by noting that Arrietty is cute and sympathetic, allowing emotional response to override moral judgment.
Deeper Analysis: The Nature of the Borrowing System
The Consumption Problem: A critical flaw in the “borrowing” concept emerges when examining what is actually taken. Sugar and cookies are consumable items that cannot be returned. Once eaten, they cease to exist. This means the borrowers can only truly “borrow” items that can be returned intact—but the film shows them primarily taking consumables. This suggests that “borrowing” is fundamentally a euphemism for “stealing and consuming.”
Ecological Interpretation: The borrowers function as intelligent organisms within the human household ecosystem, similar to mice or cockroaches. However, their intelligence distinguishes them morally. While a mouse unconsciously scatters food, Arrietty deliberately and efficiently steals while concealing evidence. This intelligence transforms them from “pests” into “thieves,” increasing their moral culpability.
Modern Technological Context: The analyst notes a crucial contemporary detail: the film was released in 2010, before home surveillance became ubiquitous. Today, with smart home cameras, pet monitoring devices, and security systems in most households, borrowers like Arrietty would be immediately detected and likely eliminated. This transforms “Arrietty” into a nostalgic work—a meditation on a way of life that can no longer exist in a fully surveilled world.
Comparison with Source Material: Mary Norton’s original borrowers explicitly state that humans exist to work for them, making their theft a form of justified extraction of labor. Ghibli’s version removes this arrogance, portraying Arrietty as fearful and apologetic. This modification suggests the studio recognized the ethical problems in the source material and attempted to make the borrowers more sympathetic by removing their explicit entitlement.
Comparative Analysis Table
| Film | Protagonist’s Action | Moral Evaluation | Justification Within the Work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrietty | Taking items without permission | Ambiguous (theft to humans, borrowing to borrowers) | Survival necessity; generational practice |
| Howl’s Moving Castle | Stealing a queen’s hair | Barely criticized | Privilege of beauty; magical necessity |
| Spirited Away | Parents eating without paying | Explicitly condemned | None (punished by transformation) |
| Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind | Taking a baby Ohmu | Morally complex | Human survival; ecological necessity |
How to Engage More Deeply with the Film
For viewers seeking a richer understanding of “Arrietty,” the analyst recommends consciously adopting both the human and borrower perspectives simultaneously. Three specific scenes warrant close attention:
Scene One—The First Borrowing: Observe Arrietty’s psychological state as she takes items. Notice her fear and hesitation. Does she appear to be committing theft, or performing a survival action? Her emotional state complicates simple moral categorization.
Scene Two—The Conversation with Shawn: When Shawn asks Arrietty why she borrows, listen carefully to her explanation. This scene articulates the borrowers’ internal logic and allows viewers to understand their perspective, even if they don’t accept it.
Scene Three—The Departure: In the final scene, observe how Arrietty and her family are portrayed. Are they criminals fleeing justice, or refugees displaced from their home? The film’s visual language here reveals the creators’ intended interpretation.
Additionally, reading Mary Norton’s original “The Borrowers” novels provides illuminating contrast. The source material’s more explicitly arrogant borrowers highlight how significantly Ghibli modified the ethical framework.
Online Reactions and What They Reveal
YouTube comments and social media discussions demonstrate that viewers intuitively recognize the ethical contradiction. The most common response—”Isn’t that just stealing?”—appears repeatedly, suggesting that audiences immediately perceive the logical problem with the “borrowing” framing.
The comment “they’re borrowing it forever” uses sarcasm to highlight the impossibility of returning consumed items. Other viewers note that borrowers are “worse than mice” because intelligence enables more effective theft. These observations reveal that audiences unconsciously understand the relationship between knowledge and moral responsibility.
Interestingly, some viewers dismiss ethical concerns by noting Arrietty’s cuteness, suggesting that emotional appeal overrides rational moral judgment. This pattern—recognizing theft intellectually while forgiving it emotionally—may be precisely the response the filmmakers intended.
Insights and Implications
After 15 years of analysis, the conclusion is clear: “Arrietty” is a masterpiece precisely because it embeds an unresolved ethical contradiction. The film does not answer the question “Is this borrowing or stealing?” Instead, it presents the question itself as the central artistic statement.
Studio Ghibli demonstrates awareness of the ethical problems in the source material by softening the borrowers’ arrogance and portraying them as fearful rather than entitled. Yet the film refuses to resolve the fundamental paradox: items taken without permission and never returned constitute theft by any objective standard, regardless of the taker’s intentions or needs.
This ambiguity reflects a broader artistic truth: morality is not absolute but perspective-dependent. What appears as theft from one viewpoint appears as survival from another. The film’s refusal to judge definitively respects the complexity of real ethical situations, where competing needs and perspectives cannot be easily reconciled.
In contemporary discourse increasingly focused on diversity, ethics, and competing perspectives, “Arrietty” gains rather than loses relevance. The film models how art can present moral complexity without resolving it, inviting viewers to develop their own ethical frameworks rather than accepting predetermined judgments.
The analyst’s final recommendation is straightforward: watch “Arrietty” while consciously holding both perspectives simultaneously. Only then does the film’s true depth become visible—not as a simple fantasy about cute tiny people, but as a sophisticated exploration of how perspective shapes morality, how survival justifies transgression, and how the same action can be simultaneously theft and necessity depending on who judges it.
