The Politics of Harry Potter (PDFDrive)

Th e Pol i t ic s of H a r ry Po t t e r
Also by Bethany Barratt

Human Rights and Foreign Aid: For Love or Money?
International Public Opinion on War: Evidence from the Iraq War and Beyond
Edited with Richard Sobel and Peter Furia
Th e Pol i t ic s of H a r ry Po t t e r
Bethany Barratt
THE POLITICS OF HARRY POTTER
Copyright © Bethany Barratt 2012.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2012 978-0-230-60851-1
All rights reserved.
First published in 2012 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN®
in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world,
this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above
companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-0-230-60899-3 ISBN 978-1-137-01654-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137016546
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Barratt, Bethany.
The politics of Harry Potter / Bethany Barratt.
pages cm
1. Rowling, J. K.—Political and social views. 2. Politics in literature.

3. Political science. I. Title.
PR6068.O93Z5265 2012
823⬘.914—dc23 2012012546
A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.
First edition: October 2012
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Transferred to Digital Printing in 2013
For JKR and everyone who has arrived
at Hogwarts and felt they were home
C on t e n t s
Foreword ix
Todd Landman
Acknowledgments xiii
1 Introduction: Politics in the World of Harry Potter 1

2 “By Order of the Hogwarts High Inquisitor”: Bases of Authority 9
3 Azkaban: Discipline, Punishment, and Human Rights 27
4 Purebloods and Mudbloods: Race, Species, and Power 59
5 The DA (Dumbledore’s Army): Resistance from Below 85
6 Death Eaters and Dark Wizards: Terror and Counterterror 95
7 The Order of the Phoenix: Intelligence, Counterintelligence,
and Secret Agencies 117
8 The Only One He Ever Feared: The Nature of War 133
9 Grunnings and Galleons: Materialism in the Wizarding and
Muggle Worlds 147
10 Conclusion: Harry Potter in the Political World 157
Notes 163
Bibliography 167
Index 175
For e wor d
Todd Landman
Wingardium Leviosa!
As a political scientist, magician, and father of three children who
have grown up with Harry Potter, I welcome this book as a great addi-
tion to the academic literature on politics. I have had the pleasure of
knowing and working with Bethany for many years as we have both
been heavily involved in the Human Rights Section of the American
Political Science Association. Bethany and I discussed the book at
these meetings, and I am pleased to see that it is finished. I applaud
Bethany for both its boldness and its creativity.
As a university professor, I am always looking for ways to engage
with my students. The typical cohort entering first year university
courses today was born in 1995, six years after the end of the Cold
War! These young people do not know much about Ronald Reagan,
Margaret Thatcher, the Vietnam War, or even 12” vinyl records for
that matter. But they do know about Harry Potter. Bethany has thus
created a wonderful tool to grip the attention of “The Millennials”
and their successors in a way that has not been done before.
Using magic as a metaphor, Bethany sees the parallel world of Harry
Potter, and all that it contains, as a fantastic resource for students
and curious readers to think more deeply about the world of poli-
tics. Ironically, through the mystical world of Harry Potter, Bethany
demystifies politics and focuses on classic questions such as power,
authority, punishment, fear of the “other,” social mobilization, war,
reasons of state, and the environment, among many others. Young
readers will immediately identify with the themes that Bethany raises
across the book’s ten chapters, and they will gain a strong under-
standing of key concepts, theories, conflicts, and debates needed to
comprehend the complex world of politics.
Hogwarts is a place dedicated to the study of magic with its own
curriculum, faculty, and different subjects, all couched in the “public
school” genre of literature borne of the British educational system:
x For ewor d
uniforms, house emblems, ties, blazers, scarves, as well as a variant of

cricket and football, which Rowling quaintly calls “quidditch.” The
Potter world itself is a complete vision that includes a class system, the
politics of identity, love and hate, good and evil, sin and redemption,
and rivalry and power struggles. The fantasy creatures are archetypes
relevant to the modern condition, and the interrelationships devel-
oped through the novels have direct bearing on the lives and political
imagination of young people today.
The history of magic is no stranger to politics. Rowling’s fictional
world is very much based on the history of the “scholar magicians,”
such as Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, John Dee, Robert Fludd, and
Sir Isaac Newton (described by John Maynard Keynes as the “last sor-
cerer” for his interest in alchemy at the end of his career). These and
other scholar magicians navigated a dangerous path between science,
religion, and politics from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth
centuries as they sought to make sense of the complexity of the uni-
verse through the application of math, logic, and mystical correspon-
dences. The rise of capitalism and modernity, according to Max Weber,
was a process of rationalization, secularization, and disenchantment.
Potter revives the notion of enchantment and brings with it a set of
parables and allegories that, Bethany shows, have contemporary polit-
ical importance.
Beyond the male magi that serve as Rowling’s inspiration, history
is replete with the politics of hate with respect to the prolonged per-
secution of women accused of being engaged in witchcraft. Across
Europe the state engaged in direct persecution of women, torture for
confessions, and capital punishment for those found guilty. Of course,
most of the accused ended up being found guilty. I have a particular
connection to this period as one of the most famous characters from
this era, Matthew “The Witchfinder General” Hopkins, comes from
Manningtree, a town just two miles from my village of East Bergholt
in East Anglia. I was so inspired by this history that a segment of my
magic stage show features the witch trials to raise awareness of the
social injustice and violence committed against women during this
period.
Politically, the height of the witch craze coincided with the English
Civil War and the genesis of Thomas Hobbes’s monumental tome
The Leviathan. Alongside the perennial questions about rationality,
realism, and social contract theory raised in Hobbes, the theme of
the “witch hunt” has also remained a popular topic in politics and
literature. One need only think of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, an
insightful parable for McCarthyism and the extreme suspicion cast on
For ewor d xi
many Americans as part of the House of Representatives Committee

on Un-American Activities in the 1950s. In The Politics of Harry
Potter, Bethany shows us how Rowling explores similar themes and
then shows us the connection between the persecution found in Potter
and the “witch hunts” of the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” which have
undermined fundamental rights commitments throughout the world
and created rifts between and among many different ethnic and reli-
gious groups.
The book’s use of magic as metaphor also raises deeper questions
about science, incremental gains in knowledge, and current debates sur-
rounding the understanding of the mind. For example, Enlightenment
thinking and the Carteisan dualism that lies at its heart are now being
reconsidered through advances in quantum physics, which suggest
that mind and body may not be as separate as Descartes first artic-
ulated through his well-known phrase “cogito ergo sum” (“I think
therefore I am”). Magicians have long believed in the “nonduality”
of mind and body, a theme that recurs throughout the Potter stories.
It may be that science is catching up with this basic insight, and on-
going research in this area will have additional political implications
for generations to come.
The philosophy of science and, more importantly, for this book, the
philosophy of social science has been wracked with debates concern-
ing the nature of knowledge, what is to be known, and how it is to be
known. Navigating paths to “knowing the world” has had significant
implications for the politics of political science itself. The discipline has
experienced so-called “paradigm wars” between different approaches
to studying politics and the different knowledge claims that they make
about the political world. The curriculum at Hogwarts has similar
tensions as the students take a wide range of courses, such as herbol-
ogy, defense against the dark arts, spells and potions, transfigurations,
etc. Students of politics are also presented with an equally wide array
of subjects, such as political theory, international relations, compar-
ative politics, American politics, and political analysis and statistics.
Departments of political science are often rife with conflict between
the professors associated with these different courses and the assump-
tions upon which their scholarly work is based. Gabriel Almond ar-
gued that political scientists were sitting at “separate tables,” and I
wonder as I read Bethany’s book, who are the scholars sitting at the
tables for Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin?
Beyond the paradigm wars, magic, science, and political science
often concern themselves with that which is “unseen” or “unknown.”
For example, in magic, the wizard changes things in the physical
xii For ewor d
world through incantations and willful concentration in the meta-

physical world. In science, Newton’s theory of gravity is based not on
the observation of gravity itself, but of its effects. In political science,
Steven Lukes argues that power can be observed (e.g., interpersonal
violence, state repression, or interstate warfare) or unobserved (e.g.,
false consciousness of workers and the hidden “real” interests of those
excluded). The notion of unseen forces found in Harry Potter is thus
not some farfetched fictional construction or magical fantasy, but an
idea that is very much at the heart of science, and more importantly,
political science.
There is thus much to savor in this book, as Bethany explores the
multiple allusions to key political themes found throughout the “great
work” that is Harry Potter. Through her seven novels, Rowling has
created an alternative world, a long and drawn-out morality play,
and a valuable vehicle for framing and addressing perennial polit-
ical questions. Like Ursula Le Guin and Margaret Atwood (as well
as C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Philip Pullman), J. K. Rowling
uses her fictional world to address life’s enduring questions with stark
images, strong contrasts, dark themes, and powerful character devel-
opment. It is clear from the passionate prose and thorough analysis
that Bethany is both a huge fan and an adept interpreter of Rowling,
as she deftly guides us through the political implications of the novels.
She is also a seasoned educationalist, committed to finding a special
path into the minds of young people so that they appreciate and grasp
the importance of politics. The future of the world is in their hands,
and it is our duty as educators to provide them with the tools to make
sense of that world.
Bethany’s special path for them, and for you, begins with Platform
9¾.
TODD L ANDMAN
Professor of Government,
Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,
and Associate of the Inner Magic Circle
with Silver Star
Ac k now l e dgm e n t s
This book would have been impossible without the good humor and
support of a host of people, all of whom I have been very lucky to have
in my court.
First, and foremost, to Jo Rowling, for the gift of all that is the
magical world.*
Infinite gratitude to Anthony Wahl, my commissioning editor at
Palgrave, for seeing the possibilities in this project way back in 2007
when I first proposed it. Boundless gratitude also goes to him, Robyn
Curtis, and Matthew Kopel for not giving up on it (or me) when
its preparation took longer than expected. Other wonderful Palgrave
staff, Richard Bellis and Desiree Brown, have been kind, patient, and
generous in shepherding it through its final phases, as has Deepa John
of Newgen.
I am also grateful for the insightful, thorough, and good humored
comments of two anonymous reviewers who read over my initial pro-
posal to Palgrave. They gave me much to think about, and because life
had other plans for me than writing this book, I had over four years
to think about it. Thus, they influenced the way the work evolved as
I eagerly completed my journey with Harry “to the very end,” and
as the release of the final films kept my imagination stoked and the
cauldron-fire burning.
Three other colleagues kept Harry in my mind even when he wasn’t
in my writing schedule. Todd Landman, Professor of Government and
Director of the Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution at the
University of Essex, is truly a magician in every sense of the word. He
has all the intellect, skill, and accomplishment of a top-flight human
rights researcher and methodologist who works on the most serious
of issues without taking himself too seriously. Lynn Weiner, my dean
in the College of Arts and Sciences at Roosevelt University, has asked
me about this project at least once a month for three years, with an
infectious enthusiasm that has, magically, never flagged. My colleague
Gina Buccola is also my friend, confidant, surrogate sister, and side-
kick in most of my more ridiculous adventures, including those in
xiv Acknow ledgments
the magical world. Would I have stood outside the largest bookstore
in Europe on the night Deathly Hallows was released without her?
Maybe. But it would have been lots less fun. The fact that this project
is every bit as much fun now as it was when I first conceived of it is
due in no small part to my Potterphile friends like Therese Boling and
Candy Peterson.
I’ve also benefitted from the tireless and enthusiastic work of two
wonderful research assistants, Katy Komarchuk and NelaTaskovska, who
were supported, respectively, the Roosevelt University Undergraduate
Research Opportunity Program and the Joseph Loundy Human
Rights Project.
Joseph Loundy is my partner in that project, and, while this book
is only partially related to human rights, my work with Joe on under-
graduate human rights education over the last four years has been one
of the most enriching and engaging things I do, and has helped keep
me grounded in the lessons in justice that Rowling offers us.
Finally, thanks and love to my partner, Lou.
* All pages referring to the Potter series mentioned in the book are
taken from hardbound US (Scholastic) editions.
Chapter 1
I n t roduc t ion : Pol i t ic s i n t h e

Wor l d of H a r ry Po t t e r
Finding a place where you finally belong—that is what it was for many
of us, entering the wizarding world, as much as it must have been for
Harry. Here was a place where not only were the freaks accepted, but
prized for the very things that made them outcasts from Muggle life.
J. K. Rowling gave us a world in which all the rules that made Muggle
life difficult seemed turned on their head. As A.O. Scott put it, “You
grow up in a hostile world governed by codes and norms that seem
nonsensical to you, and you discover at a certain age that there are
people like you—what’s more there’s a whole subculture with its own
codes and norms right alongside . . . yet strangely invisible to it” (cited
in Nel 63).
But like Harry, we soon found that things were not so simple. The
wizarding world is every bit as complicated as the Muggle world, and
every bit as dangerous. Power still matters, and there is, just as in
our world, a continual conflict between those who most value power
and those who most value justice. While the ethnic and racial con-
flicts that plague so many Muggle polities do not seem to exist, they
are replaced by distinctions equally arbitrary and equally capable of
driving people to utmost enmity. The existence of nonhuman mag-
ical creatures complicates these categories, and the ideas of civil and
human rights still further. When humans or other magical creatures
are disempowered in Harry’s world, as in ours, they may have to take
highly unconventional measures to protect the safety and well-being
of themselves and those they love. And these conflicts can, as in our
world, all too easily lead to war—war that can be fought economically,
politically, militarily, and magically. So, in fact, those of us who have
2 Th e Pol i t ic s of H a r r y Po t t e r
grown up with Harry have grown up in a magical world that is no less

political than our own.
There’s an irony, then, that so many people who first met Harry as
children, and grew up beside him, are so apathetic about the political
aspects of the Muggle world. In the United States, people aged 18–35
are the ones least likely to vote and least likely to express an interest in
politics—even though they are the ones who are likely to live the lon-
gest with the consequences of any political decision! Moreover, those
decisions are still the ones that are most likely to affect their present
and future worlds.
To those of us lucky enough to make a life studying politics, such
apathy is completely counterintuitive. When we ask young people to
explain their apathy, the reason given more often than any other is
that they do not feel they understand much about politics, and, more-
over, that political issues are so complicated they feel they are unlikely
to be able to understand it.
But if you’re someone who has grown up with Harry, you under-
stand all too well the hateful ideology that the Malfoys and Umbridge
live by, you know by heart Hermione’s arguments about the treat-
ment of house-elves, and you know the key alliances that develop as
events unfold toward the final standoff. In fact, you understand doz-
ens of the most important themes in political science and history—
you might just not know it!
I wrote this book because not only have I loved growing up
with Harry (ok, I grew up a little late!), but also because I thought
Potterphiles would be excellent partners in a conversation about the
ways the political world is just as exciting—and also just as compre-
hensible—as Harry’s is. It’s just that many of us who make our living
studying politics have an uncanny knack for making it seem highly
complicated—and even more boring. Nothing could be farther from
the truth! I hope that viewing politics from the other side of the Leaky
Cauldron will convince you of that as well.
The other conviction I hope you’ll take away is one that is central to
Jo Rowling’s perspective, even if she usually gets Dumbledore to say
it. It is this: no matter how large or how complicated a problem seems,
an individual’s choices can matter. As Dumbledore puts it: “It is not
what we are born, but the choices we make that define us.” Rowling her-
self has said this statement is one of the most important in the books.
It’s only with this attitude that we will be able to make politics a tool
to save, rather than destroy, the Muggle world.
A few further words about what this book is and is not. First, I’m
a politics geek, not a literary analyst, and I do not pretend to have
Introduction 3
the skill set to analyze her works in the same way a literary analyst
would. What can a political scientist bring to the study of a literary
phenomenon? Daniel Nexon and Iver Neuman, in the introduc-
tion to Harry Potter and International Relations, answer this way:
“Comparative expertise in political processes: how world politics and
international political economy function, how actors legitimate for-
eign and economic policy, what constraints and opportunities cutural
resources create for political action, the dynamics of transnational
national movements, and so on” (Nexon and Neumann 9). For me,
the “and so on” includes primarily the study of international human
rights protection and promotion (Human Rights and Foreign Aid:
For Love or Money?, 2007, Human Rights Since 9/11: A Sourcebook,
forthcoming), with a smattering of public opinion (Public Opinion
and International Intervention: Lessons from the Iraq War, 2012)and
comparative history.
Second, while we certainly know something about Rowling’s political
sympathies from her public statements, charitable work, and past em-
ployment with Amnesty International, I don’t assume in most cases that
she’s intentionally making an argument for a particular party or policy.
What I do seek to do is give the interested reader, who has seen how
political issues have affected the battle in the magical world, an appre-
ciation of how much they have (perhaps unconsciously) learned about
not only current political issues, but also major themes in political phi-
losophy, law, and history. Most importantly, if you have “stuck with
Harry until the very end,” you have also incorporated some valuable
lessons that, if acted upon by all of Rowling’s readers, could make the
world a far, far better place.
When I began this project in the summer of 2007, there were
already several works that gave serious consideration to social and
political issues in Rowling’s work, such as Neuman and Nexon’s Harry
Potter and International Relations (highly recommended, with several
good case studies of the way that Harry’s reception indicates impor-
tant differences across political cultures), and several of the essays col-
lected in the first editions of Giselle Anatol’s Reading Harry Potter
and Elizabeth Heilman’s Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter. Since
the release of Hallows, several other works have also considered
political themes in Rowling’s work, most notably the second editions
of Anatol’s and Heilman’s collections, Nancy Reagin’s Harry Potter
and History, Thomas and Snyder’s The Law and Harry Potter, and,
perhaps most directly, Dedria Bryfonski’s collection Political Issues in
J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series, which provides short, snappy syn-
opses of several political themes as they appear in the works. And of
course, several more general works include political discussions as part

of their scope. These include Andrew Blake’s The Irresistable Rise of
Harry Potter, Philip Nel’s JK Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels, and Travis
Prinzi’s Harry Potter and Imagination.
I specifically exclude an extensive discussion of one major topic from
my analyses: that of gender. Gender roles and relations are a crucial
aspect of wizarding society, and Rowling’s treatment of them has been
heavily debated and skilfully treated by many insightful scholars such
as Ruthann Mayes-Elma and Casey Cothran. While certainly gender
is often seen in the Muggle world as the appropriate terrain of legis-
lation, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in this book, I believed
that a chapter on gender relations was likely to range far beyond what’s
conventionally understood to be political, and was likely to necessitate
going beyond the planned extent of this book. Since such thoughtful
consideration has been given to gender issues by other authors, I do
not include a separate chapter on gender politics.
Over the last several years, when I’ve described this project to
friends in other academic fields, one of the most common responses
I’ve gotten has been this: “Is there a politics of Harry Potter?” As the
series has unfolded, that question has become rarer, but it is still nat-
ural to question Rowling’s intentionality.
Rowling has, in fact, characterized the books as “a prolonged
argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry . . . and
I think it’s a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that
you should question authority and you should not assume that the
establishment or the press tells you all of the truth” (cited in Granger
2009: 159). That’s a lot to bite off, but I think many of us, if we
think about it, have definitely taken just those lessons away from our
time with Harry. Keith Olbermann claims Rowling told him “The
parallels between the Ministry of Magic and its false sense of omni-
science and the conduct of the American and British governments
were no inferences. She had put them there” (Granger 2009: 154).
If she did, it would certainly be consistent with her assertion that the
books “preach[ed] against throughout . . . bigotry, violence, struggles
for power, no matter what.” And she has also said that she has written
for “obsessives” like so many of us in the academy, who would worry
every nugget for the full richness of its meaning (Granger 2009:150).
In fact, Wolusky argues that the “most prominent allegory in Harry
Potter, noted by Rowling and many others, is a political one” (Wolusky
34). Carey goes on to say that At the heart of the books . . . . is
one message in particular: the promotionof political participation for
young people (Carey in Anatol 2009: 159 ). In fact Rowling nods to
Introduction 5
political satire throughout—many have speculated that Crookshanks

was named for George Cruikshanks, a well-known Victorian political
satirist. And Time magazine has called the books “a 4100-page trea-
tise on tolerance” (Granger 2009:150).
The rest of the book proceeds as follows.
Chapter 2, “By Order of the Hogwarts High Inquisitor: Bases of
Authority,” examines the bases of authority in Harry’s world and
ours. The oldest question in political theory is the basis of authority.
In the wizarding world, a variety of bases of authority are set against
each other. Jo Rowling asks readers to consider the relative legitimacy
of each, inviting us to consider the most basic rationale for the estab-
lishment of government. The series, like Muggle history, locates sov-
ereignty and legitimacy variously in
1. sheer power,
2. wealth,
3. heredity,
4. wisdom,
5. meritocracy, and
6. the will of the people.
We also explore the importance of the control of information (and

the role of the media more specifically) in both reflecting and manip-
ulating public opinion (as decried, for instance, by Noam Chomsky
[1988]), as demonstrated by the effectiveness of the newspapers the
Daily Prophet and the Quibbler in spreading information and disinfor-
mation. We consider whether and to what extent the media can act as
an independent voice, and I consider the conditions under which it is
most likely to be used as a tool by those who can control it. We also
explore the impact of fear on the relationship between government
and governed.
Chapter 3, “Azkaban: Discipline, Punishment and Human Rights,”
unpacks the processes of justice and punishment in the Potter series
through an examination of the legal processes of the wizarding world,
primarily from the perspective of universal human rights. We con-
sider the role of torture and interrogation, the importance of due pro-
cess, the presumption of innocence, the uses of evidence, the unequal
status of some beings before the law, and the rules of sentencing. We
then explore Rowling’s portrayal of slavery through the treatment of
house-elves, as well as the nature of Hermione’s human rights activism
through the Society for the Protection of Elvish Welfare. Parallels in
the Muggle world include the suspension of habeas corpus and free
speech during wartime in the United States and Britain, the USA-
Patriot Act, the evolution of due process in Western political thought
(including through US Supreme Court decisions such as Gideon v.
Palko), and the evolving consensus about the universal nature of
human rights and the attendant universal jurisdiction of international
law.
Chapter 4, “Purebloods and Mudbloods: Race, Species, and
Power,” lays bare the central role of racial and genetic politics in the
world of Harry Potter. I suggest a typology of wizard attitudes toward
Muggles and Muggle-born, and document forms of discrimination by
“pure blood” wizards against Muggles and Muggle-born. The uses
and abuses of difference and ways that we socially create the “Other”
are explored. We then examine the bases, nature and meaning of the
“species-ism” that pervades wizarding attitudes and actions, as well
as the state’s treatment of other kinds of magical creatures, including
giants, werewolves, house-elves, merpeople, and centaurs. Examining
these aspects of Harry’s world and comparing them to ours provide
new ways of understanding concepts such as tolerance, equality, racial
violence, pseudoscientific race theory, and civil rights. Parallels in the
Muggle world include Nazism, the Christian Identity Movement, the
civil rights movement, and “orientalist” arguments in Western polit-
ical discourse.
We then consider how those most socially and politically dis-
empowered in society can reclaim rights and agency from an ille-
gitimate government. Chapter 5, “The DA (Dumbledore’s Army):
Resistance from Below,” reveals the role of resistance and mobili-
zation among disempowered groups in society from the perspec-
tives of social movement theory and collective action scholarship,
to determine what the DA’s experiences teach us about collective
action, and vice versa. We explore how knowledge suppression can
be used as a tool of political repression, examine the recruitment
strategies of the DA and the punishments for defection, discuss
the role of mobilization in creating community, and consider the
survival strategies of dissident groups, including Muggle precur-
sors like the American civil rights movement, the Irish Republican
Army, and the Black Panthers.
When political goals are pursued through violent means meant to
influence a wider audience, the state faces difficult choices between
order and liberty. Chapter 6, “Deatheaters and Dark Wizards: Terror
and Counterterror,” examines aspects of Harry’s world that are
emblematic of what has been called the “garrison state.” A garrison
state is one in which continuous and ill-defined external threats have
Introduction 7
long-term unforeseen consequences for political institutions and pro-

cesses, as well as for citizens themselves. We delineate the competing
incentives that governments (from the Blair administration to the
Ministry of Magic) have to exaggerate or downplay threat, the com-
plex relationships between security and civil liberties, the suspension
of due process, the incentives to scapegoat, the effect of fear on exist-
ing political and societal cleavages, the results of constant surveillance,
and the nature and roots of the resort to terrorist tactics (including
targeting of innocents/noncombatants and the creation of a general
state of uncertainty). Parallels in the Muggle world include the Red
and Anarchist scares in nineteenth- and twentieth-century America,
the current “War on Terror,” debates about whether terror constitutes
war, and domestic preparedness in both the United States and the
United Kingdom.
In Chapter 7, “The Order of the Phoenix: Intelligence,
Counterintelligence, and Secret Agencies,” we explore the role of
intelligence and counterintelligence in creating and maintaining
political power. We trace the importance of intelligence agencies in the
overall creation of political authority and legitimacy, the role of safe-
houses, the uses and consequences of intelligence gathering, the activ-
ities and effects of secret agents (e.g., Quirrell, Barty Crouch Junior,
and Snape), the compartmentalization of information, the necessity of
cellular forms of organization, and the role of information, disinfor-
mation, cryptography, and other tools of spycraft.
In Chapter 8, “The Only One He Ever Feared: The Nature of
War,” we consider the phenomenon that many political analysts regard
as the most important in all of politics: war. Drawing on social sci-
entific analyses , we explore war’s means and ends in Harry’s world
relative to our own. We examine choices made in war: whether to
use conventional versus unconventional tactics, the opportunities and
risks of forming of alliances (particularly with other species), and the
roles of morale, loyalty, and sabotage. We contrast threats from within
and threats from without.We evaluate the effectiveness of leadership
in war, particularly as demonstrated by Voldemort and Dumbledore,
and demonstrate the importance of obedience and independence in
military doctrine. We also consider the most effective ways to mitigate
war’s worst effects, and to bring about the termination of conflict. We
detect implicit and explicit laws of war in Harry Potter and compare
them with Muggle just-war doctrine (jus in bello, jus ad bellum) and
both customary and formal laws of war (e.g., Geneva Conventions).
We’ll look at how warfare has evolved, and how the role of the soldier
in society has changed with it.
Chapter 9, “Grunnings and Galleons: Consumerism and

Commodification,” casts the Dursleys as an archetypal petit-
bourgeois family, and explores the ramifications of their exclusively
material standards for success. We contrast this with the more fluid
status of money in the wizarding world. In this realm, the use of
magic destabilizes the relationship between money and power to some
extent, but this only goes so far. Wealth still matters when disparity
between families is great or when discrepancies exist between eco-
nomic and social status. We examine the differential meanings of
money in various settings: as a consumer tool, as a route to political or
social influence, and as a measure of personal worth. Finally we juxta-
pose the wealth-power relationship in the wizarding world and in key
Western polities.
Finally, we conclude in Chapter 10, “Harry Potter in the Political
World,” with some queries as to what Harry’s impact says about the
current political moment.
I hope this book proves to be a fun and interesting read for you,
and that, as with Harry, you will stick with me to “the very end.”
Chapter 2
“B y O r de r of t h e Hog wa r t s H igh
I nqu isi t or”: Ba ses of Au t hor i t y
P erhaps the oldest question in political theory is the basis of authority—

what gives one person the right to rule over another? The politics of
the wizarding world calls into question the right to rule both literally
and figuratively, inviting readers to examine the most basic rationale
for establishing government. For governments claim not merely to
have the power to compel compliance from their citizens, they claim
to have authority—that is, power with legitimacy.
By legitimacy, political theorists generally refer to the right of gov-
ernments to rule their citizens: to pass laws, to monitor compliance
with those laws, and to punish noncompliance. But on what basis are
such claims made? Throughout history, theorists and rulers alike have
made claims of a right to rule on many bases, including
naked power,
heredity,
wealth,
wisdom,
merit, and
the will of the people.
In the wizarding world’s power contests, we see all of these claims

being made, and so can evaluate their relative justice and efficacy.
Moreover, the changing political landscape also gives us opportunity
to examine the importance of the control of information (and the role
of the media more specifically) in both reflecting and manipulating
public opinion. To what extent can and do wizarding media act as
an independent voice? When and how is it instead transformed into a

tool for those who can control it? We also find there are things that
change the relationship between government and governed, echoing
some key themes of Chapter 3.
Let us begin by observing the various claims to legitimate rule that
are made by various actors in Harry’s world—first, what we can tell
about their worldview and what this in turn means for the purpose of
government; second, what follows about who is best equipped to rule;
third, what explicit claims are made to this right; and fourth, what
limits, if any, exist to authority.
Realism: Voldemort, Machiavelli, and Hobbes

The oldest theory of political power is political realism, sometimes
known as Realpolitik. Realism in this sense should not be taken as
meaning “realistic”—the theory of political Realism is something rather
different.
Realism ambitiously claims to explain both global and indi-
vidual behavior. But regardless of whether they focus on patterns in
the international system (as did Thucydides) or on people’s suppos-
edly self-interested nature (as did, for instance, Thomas Hobbes or
Niccolo Machiavelli) all come to similar, pessimistic, conclusions. For
Thucydides, the lack of an overall authority in the international system
means that states have to look out for their own best interests, since
there is no overarching enforcer who can do so. This means that the
wise state (or leader) will aim to increase state power first and fore-
most, will ensure its defenses are always strong, and will be reluctant
to trust others. In short, “might makes right.”
For Hobbes, writing in the seventeenth century, the root of po-
litical problems was human nature. Hobbes famously argued that
people are naturally driven to seek their own self-interest and that
as a result, life without government to compel them to cooperate,
or in a “state of nature” as he put it, would be “nasty, brutish, and
short.”’ Therefore, the ideal government is one in which people will-
ingly trade the liberty they had in the state of nature for the order
provided by government. The most effective government, Hobbes ar-
gued, is one in which the sovereign is given complete discretion over
his subjects. Power allows the sovereign, among many other things,
to compel citizens work for the best interests of society and the state,
rather than themselves.
So we can understand that the two views of the world are entirely
commensurate though they operate on completely different levels of
“B y Or de r of t h e Hog wa rt s H igh I nqu isi t or” 11
analysis. Because states comprise people, and people cannot be trusted

to cooperate much without compulsion, states must behave as though
they are in the dog-eat-dog state of nature—that is, they rarely trust,
often fear, and see only power as a guarantor of safety.
We know realists in Harry’s world. Power is not only a necessity but
a virtue for Voldemort and for those that idolize him. Those that rule
are the powerful, and they do because they can (Voldemort basically
restates the “might makes right” principle at several points). But in
the eyes of realists, those that rule because they can see this rule as
completely legitimate, because only the powerful can compel the total
obedience that the Hobbesian state demands. In fact, it is Professor
Quirrel, the first of Voldemort’s supporters that we meet, who best
states the archetypal realist position. “A foolish young man I was
then,” he says, when he is sure that Voldemort is about to be restored
to life, “full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort
showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only
power, and those too weak to seek it” (Stone 291). This is, of course,
precisely the tactic Tom Riddle used to gain power in the first place.
As though schooled by Henry Kissinger himself, he steadily did away
with anyone who stood up to him, and the higher the profile, the bet-
ter. He could thus spread terror to those who might be considering
resisting in the future (Stone 55).
Riddle also doesn’t understand other sources of strength. Hagrid
“reckon[s] Dumbledore’s the only one You-Know-Who was afraid
of” (Stone 55) because Dumbledore obviously possesses immense
magical power. He overlooks what he has to fear from Harry (the
power of love), and this underestimation proves ultimately to be his
blind spot.
What are the limits to authority that exist for realists? In Leviathan,
Hobbes wrote of a theoretical principality in which the ruler would
have absolute authority, and therefore absolute power to impose order.
In fact, for extreme realists, only a decline in power would legitimate
the removal of an individual ruler, based on his inability to carry out
his absolute reign.
Voldemort is not the only realist, of course, in Harry’s world. Before
ever hearing of You-Know-Who, Harry has to survive a far more fa-
miliar state of nature: school. Remember, “at school, Harry had no one.
Everybody knew that Dudley’s gang hated that odd Harry Potter in
his baggy old clothes and broken glasses, and nobody liked to disagree
with Dudley’s gang” (Stone 30).
Those who base their claim to rule on possession of power must
of necessity rely heavily on tactics of coercion. This is the reason,
and the only reason, Voldemort seeks to control the most pow-
erful tools of the Ministry, including the services of the Dementors.
In year five, Harry and Cho notice the absence of Dementors in
Hogsmeade after the mass breakout of Azkaban, and conclude that
“their absence was highly significant. They had not only let the
Death Eaters escape, they were not bothering to look for them . . .
It looked as though they really were outside Ministry control now”
(Phoenix 558).
Heredity
For Muggles who live in liberal democracies like the United States
or Britain, one absolutist government may appear to be much like
any other. However, since at least classical times, other rulers have
claimed the right to rule based not directly on power but rather on
divine ordination. Claims of inherited right to rule were originally
based on the “divine right of kings,” which held that certain families
had been divinely ordained by a deity, or were in fact descended from
deity. As the pope claimed to be God’s designated guardian of spiri-
tual matters on Earth, princes claimed to be his guardians of secular
matters. This left hereditary monarchs with theoretically limitless
power on Earth—God must have chosen them for a reason, so who
were their subjects to question them? (Though based in Roman and
biblical law and having precedents as far back as Assyria, the theory
in fact was only taken literally for a few brief periods in history. After
the English Civil War it was abandoned in England, and after the
American and French Revolutions [and the Enlightenment] it was
rarely drawn on as a source of legitimacy anywhere in Europe.)
In a premodern era, in which qualities like race and family were
assumed to have metaphysical significance, the inheritance of God’s
blessing was often taken quite seriously. To make certain though, rul-
ers (or legends) would often produce physical proofs of this divine
designation, such as King Arthur’s legendary receipt of the sword
Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake.
Like most other forms of absolutism, early monarchies took for
granted, and in fact were greatly helped in their consolidation by, the
fact that he world was quite a threatening place, and that the well-
being of the people would only be assured by having a powerful ruler
to address threats from both within and without. (Much of the con-
solidation of territorial rule in Britain, most notably under Alfred,
was of course due directly to the seemingly endless waves of Angles,
Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans lapping at the shores.) Because

defending against such threats is arguably the most basic task of gov-
ernment, an iron rule was often justified.
Limits to such authority might be apparently nil, but in fact even
most defenders of the divine right (aside from the monarchs themselves
making this claim) tended to allow for removal of a monarch when he
or she was unable to rule or otherwise incapacitated. However, the
fact that the pope was, at least until the Reformation, the only person
normally deemed able to do this served to underline, rather than un-
dermine, the doctrine of God-given rights.
Monarchies rely, of course, on a system of feudally based allegiances
that, too, are hereditary, creating an aristocratic class that directly
morally and materially supports the claim of the monarch.
Heredity of course is socially constructed to matter in Harry’s
world as well, in increasingly formalized ways as the series pro-
gresses. So while the Black and Malfoy families have attained
power in part through their riches, in fact their bloodlines are con-
sidered just as important for those who are caught up in pure blood
mania. While Lucius’s inf luence with both the Ministry and the
Hogwarts’ board of governors (in getting Dumbledore removed,
for instance, or Buckbeak condemned) is based largely on wealth,
he owes that wealth to birth, not hard work. Young wizards like
Draco are raised to assume that they have rights and priveleges
by dint of who they are, such as a certain kind of education. As
Draco parrots in Harry’s second year, “Father’s always said old
Dumbledore’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to this place.
He loves Muggle-borns. A decent headmaster would never’ve let
slime like that Creevey in” (Chamber 222). Draco also believes he
is entitled to positions of power, a belief reinforced when Lucius
ensures Draco’s position on the quidditch team and as a prefect.
Furthermore, this sense of entitlement gives Draco a sense that he
can abuse these positions, and he does, richly. He also believes he
has inherited exemption from rules—while others accept, if grudg-
ingly, the right of teachers to decide their detentions, Draco drags
his heels (literally) on accompanying Hagrid into the Forbidden
Forest on the grounds that “this is servant stuff, it’s not for stu-
dents to do . . . if my father knew . . .” (Stone 250).
Similarly, many have an easier time believing in Sirius’s affiliation
with Voldemort because he too is a pureblood from an old and (grudg-
ingly) respected wizarding family—nearly all of whose other members
were supporters.
Oligarchy
After the political and philosophical revolutions of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, most Western polities still remained highly
stratified. Social and political positions that had been filled by hered-
itary aristocracy were now increasingly populated with a new mer-
chant/manufacturing elite. The new bourgeoisie created by capitalism
was not uniform, and included everything from small tradesmen to
major firm and factory owners. Still, this did create a middle ground
between the old landed aristocracy and royalty on the one hand, and
the former peasant/serf/smallholding class on the other. Moreover,
this new middle class grew steadily in size, wealth, and power as the
Industrial Revolution spread and matured.
In this new class, connections and name might still matter, but
were no longer essential. Money itself, without title or old connec-
tions, was sometimes now sufficient to gain access to positions of
power, which would have been inaccessible in the past. In addition,
money could sometimes buy titles, and therefore access to older forms
of social respectability and their perquisites.
In the wizarding world, in many cases pureblood power appears
to rest more on wealth than on inherent respect for names or history.
While there is evidence at Grimmauld Place of the former wealth and
glory of the Black family, the Malfoys provide us with far more data
for considering the independent effects of wealth in granting access
to power and claims of legitimacy. In Muggle history, these newer
claims of legitimacy were often considered by those making them to
be superior to older, hereditary claims to power. The new moneyed
classes argued that creating wealth and new products demonstrated a
cleverness and therefore fitness to rule that might exceed those who
had simply inherited such a claim.
Industrialism, capitalism, and breakthroughs in science and
engineering proceeded very much hand in hand. Therefore, many
of capitalism’s early defenders claimed that taking a profit was not
only not immoral (as was sometimes charged), but rather the just
reward for innovation and an important stimulus to encourage oth-
ers to similarly innovate. As theories of natural selection developed
in the nineteenth century, new capitalists applied scientific conclu-
sions about the evolutionary benefits of competition to the social
realm. Economic success and its attendant wealth were argued to be
the “natural” result of superior engineering, design, or production
procedures. This reasoning allowed early barons of industry to claim
that their success in the economic realm indicated a natural fitness to

rule in the political as well.
In such a worldview, old political structures were sometimes
argued to be obsolete and “outcompeted” by new forms. For social
Darwinists, the imposition of order was no longer seen as the primary
goal of government. And in fact, too much order might be a barrier
to vigorous competition and innovation. Therefore, many came to
believe that government should ensure fairness and freedom in such
competition, rather than simply imposing order.
In a later chapter, we’ll look more specifically at the role of mate-
rial success in the magical world, but for now, we’ll consider the way
that wealth seems to inform claims to political legitimacy. A visit to
Harry’s world would give us some very immediate indications that
wealth matters here. What’s the biggest and most imposing building
in Diagon Alley? Why, Gringotts, of course, and Harry’s first impres-
sions of it leave him in awe.
If we need independent confirmation that it’s not simply being
pureblood that matters, we of course need look no further than the
Weasleys. In fact, the only advantages any of them seem to reap from
their pureblood status is avoiding the “Mudblood” slurs that become
so popular, as well as the initial persecutions of Muggle-borns after
Voldemort takes the Ministry. Other than that, Malfoy and other
purebloods seem to particularly enjoy tormenting the Weasleys
because of their poverty and because they are seen as “blood trai-
tors,” or purebloods who fraternize with Muggles—and put family
before fortune. As purebloods, Malfoy seems to think, they should
know better, and in fact they are a “disgrace to the name of wizard”
(Chamber 62).
Draco has learned well at his father’s knee, taking glee in every sign
of weakness from Ron:
“Don’t tell me you don’t know?” he said delightedly. “You’ve got a

father and brother at the Ministry and you don’t even know? My God,
my father told me about it ages ago . . . heard it from Cornelius Fudge.
But then, Father’s always associated with the top people at the Ministry
. . . Maybe your father’s too junior to know about it, Weasley . . . yes
. . . they probably don’t talk about important stuff in front of him.”
(Goblet 169)
It’s telling how engrained this sense of droit de noblesse is in the

Malfoys. Even at the nadir of their power and prestige, when they’ve
suffered humiliation, imprisonment, torture, loss of their wands,

and close brushes with death, they claim the right to dictate terms
within their own house. And they base this right explicitly on own-
ership. For when Bellatrix tries to wrest control of the delivery of
Harry to Voldemort, Narcissa uncharacteristically stops her in her
tracks, declaring: “This is my house, Bella, you don’t give orders.”
(Hallows 462).
Wisdom
Nearly as old as arguments for naked power as a basis of authority are
those for wisdom. Plato is the most famous proponent of a class of
“philosopher kings” who would be chosen by popular consent on the
basis of demonstrable wisdom. Public input would not, of course, be
absolute, since the public was not as equipped as the kings themselves
to recognize or appreciate wisdom, especially if such flew in the faces
of immediate wants or desires. Though it might sound idealistic, Plato
believed that even (or especially) in a threatening world, wisdom as
necessary to determine the best allocation of resources. Put another
way, if you treat all threats as equally serious, then resources—and
opportunities for cooperation—are likely to be wasted. Philosopher
kings would be expected to understand the nuances of the interna-
tional arena, and to be able to balance the competing demands of
diverse segments of the domestic populace.
Dumbledore in many ways is the embodiment of the philosopher-
king (something noted, too, by Prinzi [2009: 210]). Every wise adult
Harry knows trusts Dumbledore even when his reasons aren’t im-
mediately plain—which, much to Harry’s frustration, is often the
case. The point on which Harry most often questions Dumbledore’s
judgment—and on which Dumbledore is most silent about his rea-
soning—is his trust of Snape. As Lupin puts it “It comes down to
whether or not you trust Dumbledore’s judgment. I do; therefore, I
trust Severus” (Prince 332). But Dumbledore generally is a man who
keeps his reasons to himself, and Harry reacts with mistrust, confu-
sion, and resentment.
Dumbledore is a very powerful wizard, and it is for this reason alone
that Voldemort accords him a grudging respect. But he is alone in that
attitude. The rest of the wizarding community bases their respect—
and thus their desire to see him in a position of power—on his wis-
dom. It is through wisdom, not power, that one becomes Order of
Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump,
International Confed. of Wizards.
Meritocracy
Later political philosophers, while not abandoning the importance of
wisdom, came to emphasize the importance of wedding this with a
strong work ethic. The idea of meritocracy shares many roots with
the idea of oligarchy (in its capitalist form) presented earlier, for its
emphasis on hard work was rooted in the Reformation’s privileging of
good works over predestination, as well as the Industrial Revolution’s
emphasis on production. Seeing the great increases in productivity that
could be wrought through standardization of modes of production,
people began to seek to create standardized forms of judging merit. It
is, ultimately, the meritocratic impulse, that led to the standardization
of civil service sectors and examinations. While probably made most
famous by the British approach to the services, such examinations
actually were first documented in Han China. Like the perfect system
at Hogwarts, these systems attempted to identify, groom, train, and
evaluate a civil service class from an early age.
Meritocratic claims to legitimacy emerge from attempts to apply, in
a structured manner, the methods and insights of capitalism and social
Darwinism to the philosophy and structure of not only selecting gov-
ernors, but also in the day-to-day administration of government.
While Dumbledore derives most of his legitimacy from his wisdom,
he believes strongly in the merits of hard work and making the right
choices. (After all, the prophecy in which Voldemort places so much
store is only made true because he believes in it so dearly!) Though the
Dumbledore whom Harry first meets is already “very old, [he] always
gave an impression of great energy” (Prisoner 91). (Rowling has said
that she chose his name, an old English word for “bumblebee,” in part
because of this energy.) And Harry’s world is in many ways organized
meritocratically—at least in Britain. The prefect system at Hogwarts is
one clear illustration of this. (And we know it is considered to be a kind
of preparation and grooming of future leaders—as Percy would have
learned in Prefects Who Gained Power: A Study of Hogwarts Prefects
and Their Later Careers, Chamber 58). (Though of course it is a short
book.) But it is also obvious that one can attain a certain status without
having a great deal of innate intellect—as Fudge so consistently attests.
He is nothing but a malleable figurehead, so we can imagine that some
powerful figures thought he would be a pliable puppet. In this sense,
Scrimgeour serves as an instructive contrast. “There was an immediate
impression of shrewdness and toughness; the Prime Minister thought
he understood why the Wizarding community preferred Scrimgeour
to Fudge as a leader in these dangerous times” (Prince 16). Scrimgeour
is not only clever but has the chops, as former head of the Auror office,
to command the respect that only comes from the demonstrated ability
to succeed under the toughest of circumstances.
Percy, who has his sights set on the Ministry from an early age
(Chamber 58), teaches us that there are constraints in the meritocratic
system as well. He shows us that you can certainly work too hard as
well—certainly to the point of annoying your superiors and ultimately
losing sight of the underlying principles for which you are working.
Therefore, Rowling sends us a strong message about the limits of hard
work—hard work toward the wrong end, or without heart or passion,
is likely to lead one nowhere. This points to the importance of under-
standing meritocracy as wisdom and hard work combined—neither
is likely to be sufficient without the other. In fact, several of the less
likeable characters are extremely hard workers. Tom Riddle gets top
marks, is prefect and head boy, and works hard to ingratiate himself
to his professors. Snape is a tireless worker and obsessed about the
quality of his work from a very young age—his notes in Advanced
Potions Making reveal a passion for experimentation and an infectious
enthusiasm in his subject. And if we’re honest about it, Hermione’s
hard work isn’t always one of her more attractive features, either.
Harry may not appear to be at first a hard worker—we know that
he, as well as so many of the other likeable characters in his world
(Sirius, James, for instance) are actually a bit challenged when it comes
to balancing work and play. But when we look at the most important
tasks Harry is given, by the time he’s of age, he has learned to stay fo-
cused on the task at hand when many more appealing options present
themselves. We know that he’d rather do nearly anything than go off
hunting horcruxes, but he does so, against what often appear to be
impossible odds, because he believes it to be his job. He doesn’t want
to go and face death at Voldemort’s hand at the clearing in the woods,
but he does because he believes it is the only way to end things.
From Meritocracy to Bureaucracy

Civil services have a sneaky and almost inexorable tendency to grow,
with time. This happens for several reasons. First, for any organiza-
tion, no matter how legitimate the original purposes for which it was
created, there will develop over time a group of people who have a
stake in seeing it continue to exist. This is because the organization
provides them not only employment but also, in most cases, a compo-
nent of their identity. Second, all organizations will therefore seek to
increase their own resources, autonomy, and prestige. This can have
benefits, but can also lead to secrecy, and incentives to perpetuate the
very needs they were created to address. Governments are no exception
to these tendencies, and have in fact been some of the worst offenders.
To demonstrate this, one need only look at the total proportion of
jobs provided by the national government in any mature nation-state.
In the United States, for example, government expenditures as a per-
centage of GDP grew from 17.2 percent in 1948 to 31.5 percent in
2007 (though a proportion of this growth is also due to functional
expansion of the national government). Anyone who has ever enjoyed
Yes Minister or any other send-up of the nomenklatura of probably has
a clear mental image of these organizational pathologies!
In this sense, wizarding institutions are as much a victim of human
nature as their Muggle counterparts. While Percy seems to have been
born obsessed with rules, Mr. Crouch is a more typical personification
of the bureaucrat who has simply served so long in a certain way that
the means have become the ends, the tools have become the goals,
and any other way of doing a thing is silly at best. Jo Rowling could
almost dispense with her description of Mr. Crouch, for as soon as he
is mentioned we can almost guess:
That he is [was] stiff, upright, . . . dressed in an impeccably crisp suit and

tie. The parting in his short gray hair was almost unnaturally straight,
and his narrow toothbrush mustache looked as though he trimmed it
using his slide rule. His shoes were very highly polished. Harry could
see at once why Percy idolized him. Percy was a great believer in rig-
idly following rules, and Mr. Crouch had complied with the rule about
Muggle dressing so thoroughly that he could have passed for a bank
manager; Harry doubted even Uncle Vernon would have spotted him
for what he really was. (Goblet 90)
Bureaucratic insulation also tends to lead to corruption, because of

lack of oversight from outside bodies. Thus, we know there are lots
of favors given and taken within the Ministry—the Floo network can
be temporarily opened into a Muggle home, for instance (Goblet 45).
While Mr. Weasley’s little deal doesn’t seem particularly disturbing,
when corruption becomes systematic it leads to rampant inefficiencies
at best, and a fatal collapse of trust in government, at worst. This was,
for instance, one of the weaknesses in the Egyptian government that
led to its speedy collapse in the spring of 2011.
More than one author (most extensively Barton), has analyzed
Rowling’s depiction of “a Ministry of Magic run by self interested
bureaucrats bent on increasing and protecting their power, often to
the detriment of the public at large” (Barton in Thomas and Snyder
35 also in Bryfonski, 51). In fact, Barton characterizes it as “100%

bureaucracy. There is no discernible executive or legislative branch
and no elections. There is a modified judicial function but it appears
to be completely dominated by the bureaucracy, and certainly does
not serve as an independent check on governmental excess” (Barton
in Thomas and Snyder 35).
Rowling’s depiction of the Ministry has led both Barton and Travis
Prinzi to conclude that she must be basically libertarian in her political
philosophy. While definitions of libertarianism will vary in their partic-
ulars, most libertarians in the United States and Britain favor minimal
government intervention in the lives of citizens—an ideal government
would provide basic physical safety, public goods that could not be pro-
vided in any other way, and have little other involvement in its citizens
lives. Most libertarians prioritize personal liberty even if it comes at the
expense of order or equality. In contrast, Reagin (2011) notes that the
MoM regulates many things that would be in the private sphere in the
Muggle world (147). Granger (2009) suggests the “flushing” entry to
the Ministry after Voldemort’s takeover is a none-too-subtle nod at the
direction in which the Ministry has gone (59).
Democracy
Interestingly, democracy is probably the philosophical approach to le-
gitimacy that we see least represented in the extant power structures
of Harry’s world.
Democracy is so taken for granted as an ideal by many Muggles
that we don’t often stop to consider what parts are. Democratic rule is
generally understood to comprise not just universal suffrage, but free
and fair elections, real competition between parties and individuals,
relative openness of entry to political races and other participation,
freedom of expression, due process of law, and a host of other guaran-
tees. Early democracies explicitly distinguished themselves from more
autocratic states by claiming not only to keep order, but also to bal-
ance order and freedom. This balance is famously articulated in the
US Constitution’s preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect

union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the bless-
ings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this constitution of the United States of America.
For the purposes of considering legitimacy, the most important con-

cept in the United States Constitution is that which comes first. The
Constitution is established by “we the people,” not by any ruler, class,
state, or party. Therefore, sovereignty rests with the people—popu-
lar sovereignty stood in diametrical opposition to the divine right of
kings.
How this is translated into who is best suited to rule has been the
subject of some debate. Two common alternatives contrast the idea of
the “delegate” (who is assumed to gauge the sentiment of his constitu-
ents before any vote and act accordingly), with that of the “trustee”
(who is elected by his constituents because of his assumed wisdom to
act in their best interests even if it conflicts with their sentiments on
any particular short-term decision). But fundamentally, the right to
rule derives from your selection in a free and fair election by a fully in-
formed electorate. While Harry’s selection by the DA for leadership is
based on his experience, his free election by his peers embodies at least
the spirit of democracy as well as meritocracy. It might not stand up to
the scrutiny of Muggle election observers like Jimmy Carter, since bal-
loting was certainly not secret. But it seems evident that the majority of
the DA are at least satisfied with the choice of Harry as leader.
Generally speaking though, the most important structures of a de-
mocracy are missing in the magical world. For instance, there is no
clear and regular means of political participation. We know that for
officials public opinion matters. There are regular references to public
opinion. Fudge says he has no choice but to take Hagrid away when
the Chamber of Secrets is opened, for instance, and we know that his
sacking before Harry’s sixth year comes about after weeks of public
pressure. But what we do not know is who is authorized to do the
sacking, or more generally how popular opinion is expressed or what
tools the public has for instantiating its opinion.
While I disagree with Barton (in Bryfonski, 53) that “democratic
lawmaking . . . [has] . . . little, if any, effect on government as expe-
rienced by its subjects,” in a polity based on the will of the popu-
lace, one of the most important complications comes from the fact
that that will can sometimes be manipulated. American psychologist
and political commentator Noam Chomsky has famously called this
“manufacturing consent” in his book of the same name, but it has
been documented in many other studies by scholars of journalism and
political science. Political elites and the mass media not only reflect
information, but also have the potential to control it. Information
does not have to be actually misrepresented for this to occur. All
journalistic outlets have to make decisions about what stories make it

into limited air time or page limits. Simply by choosing to present cer-
tain facts rather than others, they can dramatically impact the public’s
understanding of the political world. In a democracy, the informed
public of Enlightenment theorists is ever only approximated at best,
because no one has time to gather all relevant information on every
political question. Since we must therefore experience most issues
secondhand, the nature of that mediation matters dramatically.
So elites seek to affect the public’s understanding of the nature
of political problems, the causes behind them, and, therefore, the
most likely solutions. They do this most often to gain office or stay
in office, or to secure material benefits for themselves and for various
constituencies. Opinion leaders admit, too, to doing just that. In fact
many have argued that the press ought to be a tool that supports
government policies. President Johnson, for example, admonished
the press to “get on the team” during the Vietnam War.
But no one familiar with Harry’s world would find much of this sur-
prising. The Prophet becomes basically an arm of the Ministry to an in-
creasing extent as Voldemort gains power, and increasingly functions in
a way that would have made Johnson proud -- denying Voldemort’s re-
turn, undercutting Harry’s and Dumbledore’s credibility, and explain-
ing away incidents that fly in the face of the official Ministry line.
“‘Dumbledore’s name’s mud with the Ministry these days, see,’ said
Fred. ‘They all think he’s just making trouble saying You-Know-Who’s
back.’ ‘Dad says Fudge has made it clear that anyone who’s in league
with Dumbledore can clear out their desks,’ said George” (Phoenix
71). What’s more, the Ministry’s motives are familiar as well—Fudge
is afraid of the consequences for his tenure in office if it is clear that he
has been ineffective in stopping Voldemort thus far—and irresponsible
in heeding the clear warnings provided by Dumbledore and Harry.
A Case of Power without Legitimacy:

The High Inquisitor
Power can, of course, hold sway without legitimacy—at least for a short
time. But it is likely to rely entirely on coercion. Dolores Umbridge’s
tenure as the High Inquisitor lacks any of the sources of legitimacy we
have heretofore discussed. She provides no evidence of being a partic-
ularly powerful witch in her own right, we know nothing of her family
(though from her attitude we can assume she is pureblood, or at least
pretends to be). Although crafty, she does not seem particularly wise in
the way that term is generally understood, being unable to foresee the
long-term consequences of her actions, and completely tone deaf to the

sensibilities of the students, faculty, or other magical creatures. And she
certainly lacks popular support. She cloaks herself in grandiose titles
and trades on borrowed legitimacy from Fudge, who has less and less to
spare (and therefore clings to it in increasingly undemocratic ways). (As
she loves to say, “I contacted the Minister at once, and he quite agreed
with me” (Phoenix 416).) Ultimately, she leaves as most authoritarian
Muggle leaders do—violently and with no one to support her. Being run
out of the forest by a herd of stampeding centaurs seems at least as terri-
fying as being shot to death by a US Navy SEAL team, or found hiding
in a “spider” hole in the floor after months on the run (as was Saddam
Hussein). Those who rule by fear alone are left with no resources when
they lose their ability to invoke fear. Leidl (167) also draws tantalizing
parallels between Umbridge’s extension of control over the faculty of
Hogwarts and the reaction of certain local governments in the UK
to increasing intervention from the national government under New
Labour (See also Gilbert, in Bryfonski, for an examination of Rowling’s
work as a commentary on the Blair administration.)
Other Challenges to and Sources of Legitimacy

It is important to note that one of the most powerful ways the legiti-
macy of a state or a government can be eroded is by perceived hypoc-
risy. Just as Harry’s legitimacy is increased among his peers who believe
him when he says he has had real experience with fighting the Dark
Arts, those who do not practice what they preach find their messages
discounted. People soon learn whose advice they can trust and whose
they can’t—and once you fall into the latter category it may be impos-
sible to escape it. This is true, for instance, even in close interpersonal
relationships. Though Sirius is as close to a father as Harry knows, and
generally gives good advice, Harry often ignores it because he knows
of Sirius and James’ hijinks in school. This seriously undercuts Sirius’s
authority. “‘Who’s he, to lecture me about being out-of-bounds?’ said
Harry in mild indignation as he folded up Sirius’s letter . . . ‘After all
the stuff he did at school!’” (Goblet 572). The situation is not helped
by the fact that Molly and Snape both seem unable to resist chiding
Sirius about his impulsive behavior, though they seem to do so for
very different reasons. As Molly puts it, “You’ve been known to act
rashly, Sirius, which is why Dumbledore keeps reminding you to stay
at home” (Phoenix 89).
Conversely, loyalty is highly prized in Harry’s world, and it’s
prized by both sides. In fact, those who we may come to despise the
most may be those who have no loyalty other to themselves. One

of the many ways in which Voldemort and Harry are similar, after
all, is that they know who they are and are unafraid to declare their
intentions—even if those intentions are quite different. So while
Voldemort cares for none but himself, he certainly expects complete
loyalty from his followers. One of the first things he asks upon his
rebirth in the graveyard is “How many will be brave enough to re-
turn . . . and how many will be foolish enough to stay away?” (Goblet
645). Moments after he presses the Dark Mark, he is surrounded by
his Death Eaters once again and asks: “Why did this band of wizards
never come to the aid of their master, to whom they swore eternal
loyalty?” (Goblet 647).
And Voldemort knows that there is a difference between loyalty
and fear. Pettigrew expects a reward when Voldemort is restored, but
is brushed aside as having “returned to me, not out of loyalty, but
out of fear of your old friends” (Goblet 649). So it is with pride that
Barty Crouch Junior asks “whether he forgave the scum who never
even went to look for him. Those treacherous cowards who wouldn’t
even brave Azkaban for him. The faithless, worthless bits of filth who
were brave enough to cavort in masks at the Quidditch World Cup,
but fled at the sight of the Dark Mark when I fired it into the sky”
(Goblet 675).
Voldemort, Harry, and Dumbledore: they all understand loy-
alty, though Harry and Dumbledore do so with a depth of which
Voldemort’s mutilated soul is incapable. That is why when the im-
postor Moody is revealed,
the look upon Dumbledore’s face …was more terrible than Harry could
have ever imagined. There was no benign smile upon Dumbledore’s
face, no twinkle in the eyes behind the spectacles. There was cold
fury in every line of the ancient face; a sense of power radiated from
Dumbledore as though he were giving off burning heat. (Goblet 679)
And we know that disloyalty can rain vengeance upon not just the
traitor, but on his whole family as well. When Lucius fails to retrieve
the prophecy, not only will he go to Azkaban, but Draco will be given
a task he cannot possibly fulfill, and ultimately the family will be bled
as long as they have any utility for Voldemort, then tossed aside, even
stripped of their most basic powers. In Harry’s world, there can be no
more poignant symbol of the loss of legitimacy. Bellatrix drives this
point home like a knife in Lucius’s back. “Your authority . . . You lost
your authority when you lost your wand, Lucius!” (Hallows 460).
Rowling, then, shows us there are many ways to claim the right
to govern our fellow Muggles—or wizards. All of them can enable a
functional government to persist for some time. But only democracy
embodies the justice and tolerance that she has said are at the heart
of her work.
Chapter 3
A z k a b a n : Disc i pl i n e , P u n ish m e n t,
a n d Hu m a n R igh t s
What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of

tyrranical activiites: tortured children for lying designed its prisons spe-
cifically to suck all life and hope out of inmates, placed citizens in that
prison without a hearing, ordered the death penalty without a trial,
allowed the powerful, rich or famous to control policy, selectively prose-
cuted crimes, conducted criminal trials without defense counsel, misused
truth serum to force confessions, maintainted constant surveillance over
all citizens, offered no elections and no democratic lawmaking process,
and controlled the press?
—Benjamin Barton,
Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy
The punishments meted out both at Hogwarts and Azkaban have

a creativity and a brutality that would strain the imagination of the
Marquis de Sade. Means of torture like the Cruciatus and Imperius
Curses, not to mention more entertaining tools like the Bat-Bogey and
Tarentallegra hexes, open up punitive and retaliatory realms that seem
worlds away from the options Muggles have for punishing even the
most unrepentant lawbreakers. I completely agree with Schwabach’s
observation that “international human rights law appears to mat-
ter as little as does British Muggle Law,” citing especially violations
of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights and
the Torture Convention (in Thomas and Snyder 85). (Lamentably,
the list of these violations could go on and on, including Universal
Declaration of Human Rights Articles 2 [right to life], 3 [prohibition
of torture], 4 [prohibition of slavery], 5 [right to liberty and security],
and 6 [right to a fair trial]. For an excellent discussion see Hall in

Anatol 2003).
But in fact these magical means of exercising social control exist
in contexts of power and political authority that reflect some of the
oldest—and the most current—debates about the dispensation of jus-
tice and the appropriate consequences for lawbreakers. In the pages
that follow, we consider the role of systems of justice in creating social
order, and engage in current debates about how to weigh the rights of
the individual against the rights of society. We reveal the importance
of due process in ensuring a balance between these two goods. The
components of due process are considered in the context of universal
human rights, and in the context of their legal and practical applica-
tion in the wizarding and Muggle worlds alike. We then consider the
question of whether or not these rights can ever be safely suspended
(for instance, when one cannot tell the Death Eaters from the inno-
cent), before moving on to one of the first human rights violations to
ever crystallize international outcry: slavery.
Government has famously been defined at its core as the “legiti-
mate control over the means of violence” (Weber 1919). Our encoun-
ters with Harry’s world compel us over and over again to consider the
question of the legitimacy of the use of force. This legitimacy is ulti-
mately determined by the extent to which (potential) violence is used,
mediated by a comprehensive system of laws and norms, to effectively
balance social order and individual rights.
The Ministry: A Functional System of

Law and Justice?
The wizarding world, like the mundane, seems to have both cus-
tomary and statutory law1. Customary law comprises generally agreed
upon norms of conduct that are usually followed without neccessarily
being formalized through law or precedent. In the Muggle world, for
instance, many laws of war, such as the prohibition against attacking
anyone carrying a white flag, existed as customary law long before they
were enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. In the wizarding world,
there are clearly general proscriptions on the use of magic to hurt or
coerce, as Dumbledore tells Tom when he first meets him in the or-
phanage in London. Statutory law, on the other hand, is made by a
legitimate legislative authority, whether domestic or international, and
codified in a public set of laws. The wizarding world has, for instance,
international laws such as the Statute of Secrecy as well as domestic
laws that are promulgated and enforced by the Ministry of Magic.
Azkaban 29
One of the most relevant statutory laws for Harry and his fel-
low student wizards is the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of
Underage Sorcery. (Note that while this is clearly a domestic law, its
source is otherwise not specified. As a decree it might have issued
directly from the Minister himself, or been subject to a vote in a leg-
islative chamber—though, as discussed elsewhere, we have little evi-
dence one exists.) Why does Harry abide by this act, when he is, as
Snape loves to remind all who will listen, so fond of flouting rules, and
when it would be such fun to have a little revenge on the Dursleys? In
fact, after Harry flees Privet Drive at the beginning of Prisoner, hav-
ing just inflated the brutal Aunt Marge, he knew that “he had broken
the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry so badly, he was
surprised Ministry of Magic representatives weren’t swooping down
on him where he sat” (Prisoner 31). Harry is right to be afraid, because
the decree is backed by most of the classic components of a functional
legal system.
Legal systems, whether Muggle or wizard, must have at minimum
four attributes to be effective:
● First, they must have a clearly defined system of laws, which have
explicit standards for determining when a breach of law has occurred.
For instance, the Statute for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage
Sorcery stipulates that no wizard under 17 is to perform magic out-
side of school, with the possibility of exceptions in self-defense (e.g.,
the unwelcome arrival of dementors in Little Whinging).
● Second, there must be reliable means of determining when a law has
been broken. This is the duty of the Department of Magical Law
Enforcement and the various squads that serve under its aegis, and
of our own policemen, or “please-men” as the Daily Prophet would
call them.
● Third, there must be reliable means of adjudication, of determining
the guilt or innocence of an accused lawbreaker. Here is where both
our system and that of the Ministry of Magic begin to run into prob-
lems. The Department of Magical Law Enforcement, for instance,
can tell that magic has been performed but not who performed it,
resulting in Harry’s near suspension in Chamber when Dobby levi-
tates the violet pudding (especially since the Ministry never bothers
to investigate). Memories can be modified, something at which Tom
Riddle is skilled. The wrong person can be arrested. People can
plead extenuating circumstances, whether temporary insanity or the
Imperius Curse. These kinds of problems within the adjudication
process mean that we need clearly established rules for due process.
● The fourth and final minimum component of any effective legal

system is a punitive system, a (fair) set of consequences for convicted
lawbreakers. What is fair, and what is excessive, turns out to be very
difficult to determine, and is inseparable from personal and com-
munity values. In our own world, there continues to be fierce dis-
agreement about the appropriateness of the death penalty and other
particularly severe forms of punishment.
Justice and Due Process as

Universal Human Rights
The Universality of Human Rights. Could any rights be “universal”
in the wizarding world? First we would have to decide whether this
universe extended to just wizards, further to all humans (Muggles?
Muggle-borns? Squibs?), or even to part-humans (what of Hagrid,
Lupin, and Fleur Delacour?) and beyond. It is the idea of human rights
that makes dehumanization particularly dangerous. As Prinzi puts it,
abuse of power “leads to dehumanization precisely because it is an
inhuman thing to deny the human rights of another person” (Prinzi
2009: 78). The range of life forms with human-like intelligence is
larger in the wizarding world than in ours. The very fact that certain
rights are denied to, for instance, werewolves and goblins, is precisely
what makes them primed to be courted by Voldemort—he promises
them rights they’ve been denied heretofore.
From the perspective of legal philosophy, this is a bit of a lucky
(if unexciting) break for us as Muggles. While it would be naïve to
assume that any rights are universally exercised, we can at least con-
ceive of a “universe of humanity” that is rather clearly delineated. But
whether this universe of humanity possesses, let alone attains, any
rights in common is another question altogether.
The phrase “universal human rights” is commonly traced to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the UN
in 1948. Reeling from the horrors of World War II, including the
Holocaust, the bomb, and the blitz, an international panel convened
to draft a comprehensive declaration of “equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family” as the “foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world” (UDHR preamble). This includes a
lengthy list of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
However, from its inception the idea universality has been challenged.
The most famous set of challenges have come from the cultural rel-
ativist perspective. Very broadly put, most of these arguments assert
Azkaban 31
that different understandings of the state-society-individual relation-

ship in different parts of the world mean that no rights are truly uni-
versal. (This assumes, it will be noted, that rights are constituted by
these relationships rather than being a function of one’s humanity.)
The right to freely choose one’s spouse, for instance, runs up against
the dictates of tribal custom and religious law in some parts of the
world. In the wizarding world, one can imagine arguments against
extension of rights to part-humans. Freedom of movement permitted
to wizards, for instance, might for practical reasons need to be denied
to werewolves on nights of the full moon.
Back in the Muggle world, many cultural relativists have gone so far
as to argue that there are not enough similarities between humans for
there to be any truly universal human rights—declaring that from a legal
perspective, differences between human cultures are as important and
divisive as differences between, say, werewolves and wizards, requiring
their own moral bases and their own legal systems to negotiate between
the needs and rights of society on the one hand, and individuals on the
other. The wizard world, for instance, has the Werewolf Code of Conduct
(Stone 263), and some cultural relativists would say that people from dif-
ferent cultural backgrounds similarly need their own sets of laws.
Justice and Due Process as Universal Human Rights.There seems,
however, to be a growing consensus on the equal existence of rights
and just application of laws across different cultures and nations, just
as there is in the wizarding world for fairer treatment of werewolves
and (if Hermione had her way) for house-elves.
Most human rights advocates argue that human rights are
“indivisible”—that is, no right is more important than any other—
and that all must be enjoyed if people are to live in dignity. But there
is an argument to be made for prioritizing rights to due process.
The adjudication of whether other rights (such as the right to live in
safety, or to own property) have been violated depend on the proper
functioning of the relevant legal system, and thus on due process.
To illustrate this point, one need look no further than unjust results
when due process is not followed. The central injustice of Prisoner, of
course, occurs because of the suspension of due process: Sirius is sent
to Azkaban (which is modeled in name and physicality at least in part
on the Alcatraz island in California) without a trial by Barty Crouch
Sr., based on circumstantial evidence, meaning that Pettigrew’s crime
is never discovered, and he remains free for the following 12 years.
Even in light of this miscarriage of justice, Harry continues to believe
in due process and insists that Sirius and Lupin not kill Pettigrew in
the Shrieking Shack, preferring to hand him over for trial and sen-
tencing to Azkaban instead.
Muggle and Wizarding Legal Structures

Wizarding law generally is far less developed than Muggle law. Leidl
(in Reagin) speculates that “the fact that the Ministry was charged
with enforcing the Statue of Secrecy had resulted in a growing di-
vergence from Muggle notions of individual rights and government
processes and the steady expanmsion of the Ministry’s power over
ordinary wizards” (168).
There are two sorts of law that we see setting parameters around
individual action in the wizarding world: criminal law and constitu-
tional law. (We have little evidence about civil law.)
Criminal law, of course, pertains to laws that protect individual
rights from the incursions of other individuals, and to determining
guilt and sentencing when these laws are violated. Constitutional law,
on the other hand, refers to the body of laws that sets out the relation-
ship of the government to its people, and protects individuals from
excesses of government power.
As Barton, Leidl, and many others have observed, there appears to
be almost no formal oversight or restraint on the Ministry of Magic.
We see no evidence of any separation of powers. While this con-
cept is less sacrosanct in the United Kingdom than in the United
States, the complete lack of any checks on the power of the Ministry
and its Minister is appalling by any standards. For instance, there is
little separation between the executive and judicial functions of gov-
ernment. The Ministry tries offences, tempered only to some extent
by the Wizangamot—and we have no real evidence of the latter’s
indpendence. The Ministry seems not to feel compelled to claim any
higher legitimacy than its own authority in taking any of its actions
(as Houghton among others have observed). Not only does the judi-
ciary only weakly serve to check the power of the exective, as far as
we know, no legislature even exists to check the power of the other
branches. Laws, it seems, are simply written by civil servants like
Arthur Weasley. (We know Arthur has his heart in the right place, and
even he write the laws so that they best serve his preferences. What
might other civil servants be doing?) So when Fudge declares at the
end of Harry’s trial, “Oh, but laws can be changed!” (Phoenix 149), he
means literally at any time, and by apparently anyone. Regardless of its
unchecked nature, however, the Ministry seems remarkably incapable
of carrying out some of the most important functions in any modern
Azkaban 33
society, such as ensuring more just societal relations. It “might serve as

a bulwark against pure blood activities but is constantly undermined
by the magical abilities of individual witches and wizards” (Folker and
Folker in Nexon and Neumann 115).
Within the Ministry, there is no indication of how hiring, firing,
and promotion decisions are made. To most observers, it appears to
be the Minister of Magic, perhaps in consultation with senior col-
leagues (or, more likely, rich friends), who decides on employment
and promotion (Thomas and Snyder 12–13). And Rowling uses the
Minister to embody many of the worst traits of the government. His
name alone is carefully chosen. “Fudge” carries with it the connota-
tion of dishonesty, and “Oswald” (his middle name) was the name
of the former leader of the British Nationalist Party. In short, wizard
government seems—at least when we first encounter it—to be able to
do the minimum necessary for maintenance of law and order, but is “a
mere shadow image of the Muggle state it is meant to reflect” (Folker
and Folker in Nexon and Neumann 115).
Perhaps more importantly, we have no idea what guarantees
exist for the protection of individual rights. We know there exists a
Wizengamot Charter of Rights, which some (e.g., Stouffer) have sur-
mised to be similar to the US or UK Bills of Rights, but in fact we do
not know its content. An optimistic interpretation of this absence of a
listing of rights is that it is unnecessary because “power in the magical
world ultimately derives from the individual’s own innate capacities”
(Folker and Folker in Nexon and Neumann 115).
Civil Rights and Liberties Not Directly

Relating to Due Process
Right to Assembly
A vast proportion of the action in Phoenix centers on Umbridge’s
attempt to interfere with Dumbledore’s Army’s (the DA’s) right to
assemble. As Morris and Carroll note, since the DA’s activities were
not interfereing with any other school activities, “if Hogwarts is a
public school, Educational Decree No. 24 would be null and void; it
could not prevent the DA from meeting. If, however, Hogwarts is a
private school, it could indeed prevent students from meeting, even
peaceably.
Due Process. Ideas of due process in Muggle law are generally traced
back to Magna Carta (1215), in which John I of England promised
“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or
in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him,
except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”
(Magna Carta Article 39). It has since been a mainstay of every major
Western school of jurisprudence and is enshrined in domestic law in
the United States, Britain, and every other Western democracy. The
idea has evolved to generally comprise the following elements, which
depict a more thorough system of rights of the accused than appears
to exist in the wizarding world:
● Equality before the law

● Presumption of innocence
● Habeus Corpus
● Protection against self-incrimination
● Protection against double jeopardy
● Proscription of the means of gathering evidence
● Speedy trial
● Right to speak in your own defense
● Right to a jury trial
● Rules of sentencing
● Provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.
While the wizarding world provides us with no evidence on the status

of double jeopardy, it offers us important insights into the nature and
role of these other conditions in the legitimate functioning of law and
the exercise of authority in society.
Equality before the Law. This could be considered the most
important of due process guarantees, and yet has been one of the
most widely violated. One of the reasons Tom Riddle gets away so
easily with his first murders is that he is extremely skilled at pinning
them on others. What allows him to do this is not only his skill with
Memory Charms, but also his choice of scapegoats who are partic-
ularly open to suspicion. Morfin, Tom’s inbred uncle, and Hokey,
Hepzibah Smith’s house-elf, are both at a disadvantage in the wizard
legal system.
At first glance, we may understand why they are faced with a
presumption of guilt. Morfin has a prior record of Muggle attacks,
including those against the very family that is found dead. House-
elves constitute a slave caste and are considered “magical creatures”
rather than wizards. Therefore, we are led to believe, they are subject
to a different legal and disciplinary system.
Yet a rich tradition in jurisprudence holds that such inequalities are
explicitly unacceptable. One of the most important reasons for this is
the emerging consensus that systems of laws are only as legitimate as
Azkaban 35
the consistency of their application. Equality before the law is enshrined

in documents like the American Declaration of Independence (1776)
and Constitution (1787 and repeated amendments), and the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). However,
the social context of the late eighteenth century meant that equality
extended to a far smaller universe in practice. Hence, subsequent con-
stitutional amendments and supporting legislation have been neces-
sary to guarantee that de jure equality becomes de facto.
Here again we Muggles have an easier time of it than do wizards.
When we speak of equality before the law, we are nearly always speak-
ing of equality of humans. In the wizarding world, the greater diversity
of beings with human-like intelligence complicates the system. Those
who would argue that equality between humans should not extend
to other magical beings (even those with human-like intelligence) can
point to some real and obvious differences between humans, nonhu-
mans, and hybrids.
Still, we can see that there is a case to be made for equality before
the law, since inequality contributes to serious miscarriages of justice
like those that allow Tom to get away with the murders of the Riddles
and Hepzibah Smith. Of course, inequality before the law operates in
more subtle and pernicious ways as well, as when the legal system itself
is corrupt and allows for personal connections or material influence
to sway the decision process. We know, for instance, that the outcome
of Buckbeak’s hearing in Prisoner is almost certainly influenced by
the fact that it is Lucius Malfoy bringing the complaint, and Hagrid
defending Buckbeak. There are three ways that Malfoy is likely to
have an unfair advantage: his obvious material influence due to his
frequently cited “generous donations”; his personal association with
McNair, the executioner; and the fact of Hagrid’s giant heritage. We
are not certain whether the committee is aware of Hagrid’s parentage
at this point (since Rita Skeeter has yet to “out” him), but we do know
he is unlikely to present his case in a manner to which the Committee
for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures is likely to be sympathetic.
Ironically, even if the process were operating in a way that gave
equal opportunity to Malfoy and Hagrid, we would likely see the
latter at a de facto disadvantage, if, as might be the case, his giant
heritage has affected his intellectual capacity. In the same way, de jure
fairness in Muggle courts often fails to take into account the unequal
capacities of those who appear before it. For instance, our own legal
processes often fail to consider mental disabilities that might be miti-
gating factors in determining guilt and appropriate sentence. In a US
court, if it were Hagrid rather than the hippogriff that were on trial,
a defense attorney might cite Hagrid’s disabilities and the disadvan-

tages he faced as an orphan, hoping to win a bit of sympathy from the
court.
Presumption of Innocence and Reasonable Doubt. The Buckbeak case
also entails the violation of a second key component of due process:
presumption of innocence. In English common law and the American
system of jurisprudence that derives from it, presumption of inno-
cence consists of two main requirements: that the burden of proof
is on the prosecution, and that this evidence must point to guilt (in
American jurisprudence) beyond a “reasonable doubt.” (Lower stan-
dards of proof such as “reasonable suspicion” are applied in other legal
systems, as well as in other stages of the legal process in the United
States, such as in obtaining a search warrant.)
In Buckbeak’s case, while the governors do not blame Hagrid
(because Dumbledore defends him), Buckbeak must be brought not
before a general committee on Magical Creatures but to the much
more ominously named Committee on the Disposal of Dangerous
Creatures (and his execution date set on Hitler’s birthday!). The name
itself conflates adjudication and sentencing, and also presumes that
Buckbeak is dangerous before this has been proven. We never learn
exactly what Lucius Malfoy says to the committee. But from what
we know of Buckbeak’s personality, if he was treated with respect in
the hearing, it is unlikely that any of the committee members was left
without a “reasonable doubt” of his guilt.
We also know that this is one of the major problems with allowing
the Dementors to operate outside Azkaban and come into contact
with those who have not been tried—they do not care about guilt
or innocence. (Hence they try to attack Harry repeatedly.) They are
therefore inappropriate to use in situations where their intended vic-
tims have not had the opportunity of a legal evaluation of their guilt
or innocence.
Morris and Carrol note that at Harry’s trial, he had right to repre-
sentation and to present evidence, on the basis of which a judgment
of guilt or innocence would be made. But “Fudge had predetermined
Harry’s guilt and attempted to influence the other members of the
Wizengamot. The Minister’s premature conclusion impacted his
actions as presiding judge.”
Habeus Corpus. Toward the end of Morfin’s life, Dumbledore man-
ages to discover that it was not him, but Tom, who committed the
Riddle murders. Dumbledore attempts to use the true memory he has
extracted from Morfin to win his release from Azkaban. The right to
petition for a writ of habeus corpus (Latin, “to have the body”) is one
Azkaban 37
of the oldest in common law and can also be dated at least as far back
as Magna Carta. It entails the right of a prisoner to request that his or
her case be reheard, usually because of some assertion that due process
was violated the first time the case was evaluated. As such, it is one of
the most fundamental components of due process because it provides
relief when there have been violations of other components—a last
resort.
We know that this functions in a relatively limited form in the
wizarding world, and its absence results in miscarriages of justice.
Dumbledore, of course, is unable to win Morfin’s release from Azkaban
before Morfin dies, but we suspect that the way is not made easier
for him by Morfin’s prior record of hate crimes against Muggles, nor
by Morfin’s clear mental deficiencies that have only heretofore served
to work against him in the legal system (rather than to mitigate the
severity of his punishment).
Protection against Self-Incrimination. Since memories can be mod-
ified and replaced with false ones, and Imperius Curses make most
wizards completely irresponsible for their actions, legal protections
against self-incrimination would seem to be of the utmost impor-
tance. Muggles have enshrined them in the fundamental law of the
land in many democracies, such as in the 5th Amendment of the US
Constitution, which ensures that no person “shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
But the evidence we have from the wizarding world suggests that
no such protections exist. No one checks to see if Morfin’s or Hokey’s
memories have been modified, in part because of preexisting preju-
dices against them. Ironically, the one defense that gets used the most
often is one for which there is apparently no objective test: the asser-
tion that the illegal action was performed while under the Imperius
Curse. Whether the assertion is accepted depends on the status and
influence of the person making it, demonstrating further the critical
importance of equality before the law for a functional and legitimate
system of justice.
Speedy Trial. The importance of habeus corpus protections derives
from the many tragic historical episodes in which legal procedures
have been used not to maintain social order and establish justice, but
rather to further particularistic political aims, by detaining political
opponents for indefinite periods without trial. Some of the more
brutal examples include the Spanish Inquisition, Abraham Lincoln’s
suspension of habeus corpus during the American Civil War, and the
denial of habeus corpus rights to detainees under the 2006 Military
Commissions Acts as part of the United States’ “war” on terror.
Wizard law allows for regular detaining of persons in Azkaban,

which surely comprises punishment in and of itself, without trial and
with indefinite arrangements for trial. Hagrid, of course, is taken
away to Azkaban for months, based on 50-year-old suspicions when
the Chamber of Secrets is opened. At the end of Order, the Ministry
attempts to take Dumbledore to Azkaban to “await trial” though it is
not clear when that trial will take place. And of course the most serious
case is Sirius’s 13-year detention in Azkaban without trial. I also agree
with Fishman (in Thomas and Snyder 124) that there are many real
prisons whose conditions are every bit as effective as Dementors in
destroying hope and happiness.
On the other hand, too much speed can make a trial unfair as well.
When Harry’s hearing is changed at the last minute to an earlier time
that makes it likely he (and Dumbledore) will miss it, he could easily
have lost the chance to defend himself. If it were a Muggle court and
he had been found guilty, he would have been entitled to a new hear-
ing based on this violation of new process.
Proscriptions on the Means of Gathering Evidence. We have already
noted several ways in which the trials of Morfin and Hokey violate
rules of due process. One of the most essential of course is that the key
pieces of evidence against them—their own confessions—are in fact
tarnished as they were falsely implanted. Fair trials rely heavily on the
quality and quantity of evidence presented against the accused parties.
The quality of this evidence is in turn determined by the manner in
which it is gathered.
While it is rare that accused persons in the Muggle world falsely
remember committing murder, there are all kinds of other means in
which false confessions can be obtained. These include torture, false
promises of leniency, and plea bargaining (agreeing to plead guilty to
a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence).
In fact, we see all of these means being used in the wizarding world.
The use of Veritaserum, we know, is proscribed against Hogwarts
students (as is the use of truth serums in legal investigations in the
United States), but both Snape and Umbridge express a willingness
to use it against Harry, and even Dumbledore orders its use against
Barty Crouch Jr. People can be tortured into madness in both the
wizarding world and our own—sadistic dictators like Chile’s Augusto
Pinochet and Cambodia’s Pol Pot have proven every bit as effective as
the Cruciatus Curse in getting victims to say nearly anything. While
no Muggles have Snape’s powers of legilemency, certainly there are
interrogators in our world who are skilled at reading subtle signs
in the behavior and speech of the accused and drawing conclusions
Azkaban 39
accordingly. Unlike legilemency, however, reading these signs is as

imperfect an art as reading Sibyll Trelawney’s tea leaves, and therefore
Muggle interrogators often draw incorrect conclusions.
Evidence can be contaminated in subtler ways as well. For instance,
the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects against
“unreasonable searches and seizures”, due to colonial experiences in
which such searches were often used for political rather than eviden-
tiary purposes. But this Fourth Amendment protection has unfor-
tunately recurred relatively regularly—for instance, in coordinated
police actions against social movement groups like the Black Panthers.
Hence, the Fourth Amendment requires warrants based on “probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It
also prohibits secret searches.
Just as such safeguards have been regularly violated in the United
States, it appears that there are relatively weak safeguards in the wiz-
arding world as well. Arthur Weasley searches the Malfoy mansion in
Chamber after Harry witnesses Lucius’s transaction in Bourgin and
Burke. Arthur later tells Harry it was his tip that led to this search,
yet some civil liberties’ advocates would surely question whether the
hearsay evidence of a 13-year-old is sufficient for “probable cause.” In
the Muggle world, Arthur would have needed either a search warrant
or an applicable exception, otherwise any evidence seized would be
inadmissible at trial.
The quality of evidence depends not simply on the manner in which
it was collected but also on the nature of the evidence itself. One of
the most important evidentiary distinctions is between direct evidence
and circumstantial evidence. Since circumstantial evidence is heavily
relied upon in some key judgments in Harry’s world, this is an impor-
tant distinction. Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence
in that it involves an extra degree of separation from the observation of
the event. A witness who sees a wizard cursing another wizard could
give direct evidence: “I saw Mundungus Fletcher point his wand at
Arabella Fig and mutter the Jelly-Legs curse, and I then observed
Mrs. Figg unable to stand normally.” A witness who sees evidence
that such an act has been committed, without witnessing the act itself,
could only give circumstantial evidence. For instance, if the witness
saw Mundungus threatening Mrs. Figg with the curse, went away, and
later saw Mrs. Figg unable to stand normally, this would be circum-
stantial evidence that Mundungus had performed the curse.
This example demonstrates why circumstantial evidence should not
be accorded the same weight in legal proceedings as direct evidence.
And yet everyone from the Ministry to Harry and his friends to
Dumbledore make important judgments based almost entirely on
circumstantial evidence. In the central case of mistaken identity in
Prisoner, Pettigrew cleverly manages to create circumstantial evi-
dence that will convict Sirius and clear his own name in not only the
Potter murders but the subsequent Muggle murders. No one actu-
ally sees what happens, but the fact that Sirius is left standing while
only Pettigrew’s finger is ever found creates powerful circumstan-
tial evidence of Sirius’ guilt (Prisoner 207–209). Since no one other
than Lupin and Sirius know that Pettigrew is an Animagus, this is a
particularly convincing ruse. The circumstantial evidence is so con-
vincing that it starts to shape other people’s subsequent interpretation
of events. For instance, Hagrid finds Sirius at the Potters just after the
murders and is now convinced that he must have been there because
he was responsible, not because he was in mourning (Prisoner 207).
Circumstantial evidence is also used by Lupin when, in ques-
tioning Pettigrew, he notes that it seems unlikely that an innocent
man would choose to live as a rat for 13 years (Prisoner 369), and by
Dumbledore when he asserts that Sirius has not “acted like an inno-
cent man” (Prisoner 392). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get
Winky sacked by Crouch after the Dark Mark is conjured, though we
later come to learn he has other reasons for feeling let down by her
actions.
We do, however, see respect for another basic rule of evidence—
that the accused be allowed to hear the evidence against them (e.g.,
US Constitution, Amendment 6). While it is sometimes worded in a
manner that deliberately leads the jury (Goblet 595), we see repeated
examples of the accused being present at their trials and hearing
the evidence presented against them. On the other hand, we do not
always know who their accuser is, and might wonder if Karkaroff, for
instance, had to come back to testify in person about the Death Eaters
he names in his trial (Goblet 332, 587).
Right to Speak in One’s Own Defense. This might seem to be the most
basic of all the provisos of due process—in fact some would argue that
the reason it is not explicitly mentioned in either the United States
or the British Bills of Rights is because it is so basic. And yet we see
that this right is suspended in at least two key cases in Harry’s world:
in his own hearing regarding the underage use of magic, and in the
trial of Barty Crouch Jr. Neither of these cases might be considered a
“normal” jury trial—Harry’s is supposed to be merely a disciplinary
hearing, and Barty Crouch Jr’s is being conducted in a wartime set-
ting in which many normal rules of due process have been suspended.
Azkaban 41
However, in both cases the accused is denied not only proper repre-
sentation but also any formalized space to speak in his own defense.
Harry finally manages to do this, but only after being cut off several
times by Fudge.
Right to a Jury Trial. A trial by a jury of one’s peers in crim-
inal proceedings is a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence and is
meant to ascertain that decisions of guilt or innocence are not used
as political rewards or punishments. Before considering jury trials,
we should note that in several cases, individuals are imprisoned with
no trial at all, which flies in the face of both domestic and interna-
tional laws and norms (for an excellent discussion of these, see Hall
in Anatol 2003).
While jury trials are clearly central to wizard justice, the makeup
of these juries is variable. In some cases, judgments are made by the
entire Wizangamot (as in Harry’s disciplinary hearing in Order), in
others, judgments are made by a separate jury. This is the case, for
instance, in several of the Death Eater trials that Harry observes in
Dumbledore’s Pensieve. While the Wizengamot seems to be analo-
gous to a Supreme or High Court, it is also the only court setting we
encounter, ruling on everything from murder trials to disciplinary
hearings for underage wizards such as Harry. Perhaps the British wiz-
arding community is small enough that no more complex system of
courts is necessary. The variable presence of a separate jury implies
that it is in the most serious cases that the accused is afforded a jury of
her peers. However, whether this guarantees an objective dispensation
of justice is highly questionable, since we see at least two instances
in which juries are blatantly guided toward a particular decision by
the judges who are supposed to be merely instructing them. First, at
Harry’s disciplinary hearing, Fudge clearly tries to discredit Harry by
casting aspersions on his assertions about the presence of Dementors.
And at the trial of Barty Crouch Jr and the Lestranges, Crouch Sr.
“ask[s] the jury to raise their hands if they believe as I do that these
crimes deserve a life sentence in Azkaban” (Goblet 595). Crouch Sr.
makes this trial a show trial at best, which some would argue is worse
than no trial at all, since it makes a mockery of the legitimate legal
process it imitates.
Rules of Sentencing. Generally in Western jurisprudence, the
adjudication and sentencing stages of criminal proceedings are con-
ducted separately, as befits the conceptual difference between the ad-
judication and punitive components of any functional legal system.
The basic rationale behind this separation is that the circumstances
in which a crime was committed may be such that a lesser sentence
is warranted, quite apart from the question of guilt or innocence of

the crime. For instance, ascertaining that Harry conjured a Patronus
in Magnolia Walk was a simple matter of determining whether
the Patronus charm was used and whether there were other wiz-
ards in the area (though again here we are relying on circumstan-
tial evidence). But sentencing might be a much more complex task,
including a consideration of the circumstances under which the vio-
lation occurred, such as the crucial fact that a dementor was an inch
away from administering the Kiss. It is easy to see why it would be
desirable to undertake these two tasks separately.
But they to be treated as a single legal stage in the wizarding world.
The trial of the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. is clearly being held
to determine not just their guilt but their sentence as well; in fact
when Barty Crouch asks for the jury’s verdict, he actually asks for their
sentence rather than their verdict, even though it is clear that they
have not yet been convicted.
Provisions against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. I agree with
John Granger (2007: 175) that it is indicative of the sorry state of
modern prisons that “no-one has defended courts and prisons against
her portrayal.” This may be the most difficult component of due
process to execute, because of the highly contingent meaning of the
terms “cruel” and “unusual.” After all, if having one’s soul sucked
out through one’s mouth is not cruel and unusual punishment, what
is? In fact, Rowling has argued that “the use of the Dementors was
always a mark of the underlying corruption of the Minstry” (cited in
Wolusky 40).
This last component of due process moves us into the fourth task
that any functional legal system must perform, that of determining
and meting out consequences for demonstrated violations of the law.
Proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment are prima facie
widely and consistently accepted. They are enshrined in the all major
Western enumerations of rights, including the English Bill of Rights,
the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and the European Convention on Human Rights, among other places.
The United States is unique in placing emphasis on the “and” in the
phrase “cruel and unusual,” meaning that in theory punishments that
are either cruel or unusual are acceptable.
This component of due process is circumscribed more severely than
all the others by cultural and individual judgments of what is “cruel”—
and of course describing something as “unusual” is making, by defi-
nition, a comparative and contextual statement. (For instance, while
soul-sucking is undoubtedly cruel even by wizarding standards, it is
Azkaban 43
certainly not unusual. Similarly, heinous punishments such as drawing

and quartering and tarring and feathering were once commonplace in
the Muggle world.)
Jurists have attempted to provide some rules of thumb in deter-
mining what actually constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in a
given situation. One of the more famous sets of guidelines was put
forth by US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, writing for the
majority in Furman v. Georgia (408 US 238 [1972]). The crucial con-
stitutional question for the court was whether the death penalty per se
violated the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution (which contains
the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). Brennan stip-
ulated four components of cruelty, any one of which would make a
potential punishment constitutionally unacceptable. These were (1)
severity that was by definition degrading to human dignity, (2) arbi-
trary infliction, (3) clear and total rejection by society, and (4) patent
unneccesity. While these guidelines raise as many questions as they
answer, they also provide a starting point for considering the character
and manner of punishment in the wizarding world.
This might be an appropriate place, as well, to ask what the phi-
losophy is behind discipline in wizard jurisprudence. In modern
criminal justice, one of the main debates is over the purpose of sen-
tencing: Is the sentence meant to punish past activity, deter future
activity, rehabilitate the individual, or some combination of the two?
Death Eaters are punished both as a consequence of past action and
as a deterrent to future actions (Fishman in Thomas and Snyder
124), and the way most wizards speak about Azkaban certainly
seems to indicate its effectiveness as a deterrent. Rehabilitation,
however, seems unlikely. As Stouffer observes, “Retribution and
rehabilition tend to be ignored, the focus is instead on deterrence
and incapacitation” (209).
But is this deterrence and incapacitation cruel and unusual accord-
ing to the four standards set out above? While some would argue that
punishments are by definition degrading to human dignity, and that
this in fact one source of their effectiveness, clearly there are grada-
tions. While a life sentence in Azkaban with the dementors is essen-
tially a one-way ticket to madness, most seem to be able to recover
from shorter stays such as Hagrid’s imprisonment of a few months, or
Morfin’s first stay of three years in. Even the Death Eaters who have
escaped after 13 years appear to be in full command of their faculties
in the Department of Mysteries battle. The Dementors’ kiss, how-
ever, is widely described as a fate worse than death, leaving a shell of a
person with no sense of self, no memory, no happiness, and no hope.
This clearly does seem to be an assault on human dignity at its most

basic psychological source.
Ironically, the horrors of the dementors’ kiss seem to be generally
accepted in wizarding society, with some outspoken exceptions such
as Dumbledore. What are not accepted, however, essentially by defini-
tion, are the Unforgiveable Curses. We know that these are the three
curses that are sure to earn their user a trip to Azkaban if she is caught.
While there are indications (such as the wording of Crouch’s ques-
tion to the jury in the Lestrange/Crouch Jr. trial) that the sentencing
guidelines for the Unforgiveable Curses are codified into law, there
also appear to be customary laws regarding the manner in which spells
are used, a more subtle set of distinctions than simply proscribing
certain spells full stop. For instance, Dumbledore warns Tom at the
orphanage that while Hogwarts expels students for inappropriate use
of magic, the Ministry “will punish lawbreakers still more severely.”
This is because of a general understanding that the use of magic to
punish, hurt, or control is considered unacceptable in wizard society.
And “all new wizards must accept that, in entering our world, they
abide by our laws” (Prince 273).
In attempting to determine the “patent unneccesity” of any pun-
ishment’s severity, we again run into the problem that this is largely a
subjective judgment. However, there are clearly cases where it would
be hard to argue against neccessity. For instance, few would disagree
that it was necessary to lock up most of the remaining Death Eaters
following Voldemort’s first rise to power, given the mass death and
chaos they were causing.
This is not to say that punishments that are cruel and unusual
do not exist in the larger wizarding world, beyond the doors of the
Ministry—they certainly do. Punishment occupies a central role in
the maintenance of order and authority in the wizarding world.
The Role of Punishment in Wizard Relations of Power. The centrality
of punishment in maintaining social hierarchy and relationships of
power quickly becomes evident when we examine two social networks
that at first appear to be very different: that within Hogwarts and that
of Voldemort and his followers. These sets of relationships actually
demonstrate marked similarities in the way that punishment operates to
reify power hierarchies within them.
If we evaluate how punishment at Hogwarts measures up to the
four characteristics of cruelty, we come up with a mixed report. Several
times in the first two books we hear Dumbledore rebuff attempted
Ministry interference by reminding Fudge that he has no authority over
discipline and punishment within the walls of Hogwarts. Hogwarts’
Azkaban 45
position outside Ministry processes and authority at first appears to

be entirely advantageous for the students, as Dumbledore is so very
obviously wiser and kinder than Fudge (why else would he have been
invited to be minister three times?!). However, the combined effect of
this autonomy and the minor status of most Hogwarts students is that
due process in many cases breaks down completely. Considering just
the issue of cruel and unusual punishments illustrates this in spades.
Many of the punishments meted out at Hogwarts are not only
degrading to the students’ dignity as a secondary effect of their
severity, they are in fact designed to be humiliating as well. When, in
Harry’s sixth year, Snape makes him copy out the records of his father’s
and Sirius’s “crimes” and punishments, he is intentionally degrading
Harry’s two father figures, both of whom are dead. (He even reads
the first card bearing their name on it aloud and jeers about the record
of their “great achievements” outliving them [Prince 532].)
Infliction of punishment at Hogwarts is also extremely arbitrary.
Professors appear to have complete control over how many points they
take from students, as well as over the type of detentions they assign.
There are regular instances where professors are clearly considering
how many points to take away after a particular offense, which indi-
cates there is no standard whereby certain offenses are assigned certain
proportionate punishments.
Similarly, whether or not a punishment is unnecessary seems to be
rather beside the point in most cases: the staff explicitly go beyond
what is necessary to restore and maintain order, to further teach the
students lessons about discipline, and to make them realize the conse-
quences of certain kinds of actions—and in some cases make examples
of them. This is, of course, what Filch intends to do to Harry when
he suspects him of petrifying Mrs. Norris (Chamber 125). Umbridge’s
scalpel quill is certainly the most diabolical of these excessive “teach-
ing” tools, but we also know that Filch has manacles and other medi-
eval torture devices practically burning a hole in his office cabinet.
Hogwarts does not, however, seem to officially condone methods
that are proscribed in wider society. Dumbledore does not, much to
Filch’s chagrin, allow him to make use of his motley collection of
thumbscrews, whips, and chains (Chamber 125). We can safely sur-
mise that Unforgiveable Curses are not allowed as a form of punish-
ment, since Dumbledore does not even want them demonstrated in
the fourth-year Defense against the Dark Arts class. And we know
that the staff are forbidden from using Transfiguration as a punish-
ment, no matter how entertaining its results, as McGonogall reminds
Moody after he creates a new pet ferrett.
The arbitrariness of “sentencing” and the range of humiliating and

often painful punishments available has an important effect on the
creation and maintenance of relations of power at Hogwarts. The cru-
cial variables are not the offense itself or the process by which guilt is
determined and punishments assigned, but rather the whims and per-
sonality of the staff member involved, as well as whether he likes the
accused student. (as we see so often in Snape’s radically different treat-
ment of Draco and Harry). The relevant aspect of the situation there-
fore becomes the power relationship, rather than the specific actions
taken by the student. Students might be expected to learn from this,
over the course of seven years, that what matters most as a basis for
authority is power and status, not facts, process, or justice.
This is exactly the basis for authority that Voldemort claims over
his Death Eaters. Voldemort’s very existence in a sense constitutes the
books’ strongest argument for the value of due process. His complete
refusal to contain his power and wrath in anything beyond his own
whims and interests is the very source of his power over his Death
Eaters. The knowledge that he “does not forgive easily” as Snape
reminds us (Prince 34), and that his dispensation of revenge is highly
arbitrary, serves to keep his Death Eaters not only in his thrall but ter-
rified of deviating from his orders in even the minutest of ways.
We know that this instinct to hurt and to control is one that Tom
has possessed since Dumbledore’s first encounter with him, before he
even recognized he was doing magic. This instinct is so strong in him
that he is unable to conceive other paths to power.
Ironically, there are signs that this may prove to be a fatal flaw.
With the possible exception of Bellatrix, his followers stay with him
out of fear, not loyalty, as he himself laments. By failing to forgive,
and by punishing those who have returned to him, he guarantees that
his power over his followers is entirely dependent upon his ability to
punish. The Malfoys turn against Voldemort, in spirit if not in deed,
because of his maltreatment of Lucius and Draco, and Narcissa is will-
ing to risk his displeasure to save her son. As Dumbledore asks Harry,
“Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress?
All of them realize that one day amongst their many victims, there
is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!” (Prince
510).
Finally, it is important to note that there is a certain arbitrariness
in the meting out of discipline, something that undercuts the func-
tionality of any legal system, since there is no guarantee that offenses
will be punished. For instance, lesser offenses, which are often subject
to fines, do not appear to be monitored very well (perhaps in part
Azkaban 47
because most of it seems to be done by ordinary Ministry function-

aries, rather than any police analogue). The Ministry does not know
who it was, for instance, who used magic in the presence of a Muggle
at the beginning of Chamber, and to hear Petunia tell it, the Ministry’s
monitoring of underage magic use has become far more strict since
her own school days. Morfin Gaunt was sentenced to three years in
jail and Marvolo only six months, for the same criminal act against the
Ministry staff. (However, the difference in sentencing may be due to
the fact that Morfin had a prior record [Morris and Carroll]).
Human Rights Abuse and Advocacy:

The Watershed of Slavery
Legal due process guarantees are only as strong as the political will
behind them. An alchemical alloy of legal and political action is
the only thing that can imbue paper guarantees with the weight of
enforcement—and perhaps in time even ingrain them in the innate
norms of society. The issue of slavery—in our world and Harry’s—
elucidates the nature of, and challenges to, “universal” human rights
standards. At the same time, for many observers “it is problematic
trying to figure out what Rowling wants us to think about the house
elves”—are they indeed meant to illustrate key lessons about enslave-
ment in the Muggle world, or are they purely fictitious with no real
world analogue (Gupta 119)?
The Nature of Slavery in the Wizarding World and the United States.
Slavery is a particularly serious affront to human rights standards,
because it entails the categorical deprivation of most other rights.
Furthermore, these denials are grounded in the premise that some
categories of persons are naturally superior to others, a premise in-
consistent with the very notion that there are rights that apply to all
persons, no matter what.
The enslavement of house-elves in the wizarding world clearly dif-
fers from the enslavement in the Muggle world. Most obviously, they
are in fact a different class of magical beings. According to Percy’s
citation of the law (Goblet 147), they are “non-wizard part-humans.”2
However, whether they are in any natural or “essential” way inferior
to wizards remains unclear, though it has been considered by many
scholars. We are told on more than one occasion that they possess
powerful magic of their own, and from Winky’s actions, we know
it is powerful enough to bind even a very determined Dark Wizard.
Second, the legal basis for their enslavement differs. They cannot be
bought and sold, only inherited. They are therefore less explicitly
commodifiable than slaves were in the transatlantic slave trade3. Harry

also suggests that house-elves might be contractually bound, when he
reflects that Hokey might have a clause in her contract stipulating she
could not speak her mind about Hepzibah Smith (Prince 434). (Even
Dobby remains hesitant to speak ill of the Malfoys, regardless of the
abuse that he received at their hands and the fact that he is now free.)
Yet house-elves occupy a social role in the wizarding world that
is very much analogous to that of slaves in the antebellum American
South.
One of the first, if superficial, parallels we notice is the dialect in
which the house-elves, especially Winky, speak. House-elf diction is
distinguished by frequent reference to titles as terms of respect, use of
the third person almost exclusively, eschewing of personal pronouns,
and disagreement between subject and verb tenses. When Hermione
asks Winky how much she is getting paid, the elf bridles, “Winky is
a disgraced elf, but Winky is not yet getting paid! . . . Winky is not
sunk so low as that! Winky is properly ashamed of being freed” (Goblet
379). We see many of these traits in caricatures of Southern American
slave dialect.
Second, and more fundamentally, wizard attitudes toward house-
elves manifest a peculiar mix of attitudes that is similar in some
ways to those of American slaveowners. One of these is paternalism.
Slaveholders argued that slaves needed the guidance that slaveholders
provided, and referred to slaves of any age as their “children” (see e.g.,
Genovese 1976). Wizards, too, think of house-elves as a class needing
guidance and protection. The aforementioned legislation regarding
the treatment of “non-wizard part-humans” may be a product of this
attitude, as does Hagrid’s concern that Hermione would do them
an “unkindness” in taking away their work (Goblet 265). Just as
Winky and Dobby seem “naturally” frightened much of the time, the
paternalism of many slaveholders led them to see slaves as equivalent
to overgrown, frightened children who therefore needed to be told
what to do (just as Ron claims that house-elves like to be “bossed
around” [Goblet 125]).
Because paternalism is rooted in the assumption that others are
incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions, it can lead
to pity or contempt, and sometimes both. Hermione’s righteous
anger on behalf of the house-elves is certainly born out of pity, and
many abolitionists were clearly motivated by this sentiment. For in-
stance, an antebellum periodical for children known as The Slave’s
Friend described virtuous boys: “Such boys as Daniel will make good
abolitionists. They will pity the poor slaves.” (vol. 2 #4, probably
Azkaban 49
published 1837, available online at http://www.merrycoz.org/slave/

slave16/slave16.htm). On the other hand, apparent helplessness and
submission can, viewed through different ideological lenses, lead to
scorn or even hate. Sirius regularly derides Kreacher’s fawning adora-
tion of other members of the Black family: “I . . . caught him snog-
ging a pair of my father’s old trousers last week” (Phoenix 117). The
Malfoys’ treatment of Dobby descends into physical and psychological
abuse, though it is unlikely they consider him worthy of something as
strong as hatred. Likewise the allegiance of Southern slaves generally
sprung more from the threat of “whipping, burning, mutilation and
death” (Zinn 1995: 35), with which Dobby is so familiar, than from
any genuine loyalty to the family they served. (While Dobby’s auto-
punishments such as ironing his fingers (Chamber 176) and shutting
his ears in the oven (Chamber 14) seem innovative, it is likely they
were applied to more than one unfortunate slave in the antebellum
American South.)
Third, enslavement is generally for life. We know that there are few
elves like Dobby who go free, and this means that the families that own
them come to trust and, in some cases, rely on, slaves’ discretion. We
know that Winky not only keeps secrets for the Crouches but aids in hid-
ing Barty Jr. for a full 13 years, attempting to shield him from “nosing”
even after her dismissal (Goblet 538). Sometimes slaves become privy to
family secrets not through intention, but through literal or figurative
invisibility in a world where they are considered to be less than full per-
sons. Nearly Headless Nick says that the sign of a good house-elf is that
you do not know it is there (Goblet 192). Similarly, African American
slaves, like children, were meant to be seen, and not heard. This quality
of “hiddenness” came even to characterize the “peculiar institution”
itself in US social and political discussions. Frederick Douglass once
observed that in American political dialogue “the Negro was stowed
away like some people put out of sight their deformed children when
company comes” (quoted in Zinn 1995:185).
Invisibility was facilitated by apparent slave docility. Through
physical, social, and psychological trauma, slaves could be made to
internalize their oppression and “know their place” (Zinn 1995: 35).
Slaveowners could only have dreamed of being effective enough to
produce attitudes like those of the house-elves, who even censure each
other for having “ideas above [their] station” (Goblet 98). Blackness,
like the house-elf’s garb, but unchangeable, became a sign of subor-
dination. Whites tried to raise slaves from infancy to be “awed by the
power of the master” (Zinn 1995: 35) as Dobby is awed by Harry’s
“greatness” (Chamber 15) and “importance” (Chamber 16).
A slaveowner’s subjugation of her slaves is made all the easier if slaves

can be stripped of one further crucial human quality: their hopes. If
a slave is socialized from an early age to believe that individual hopes
and dreams are fruitless, and that the best one can do is to iden-
tify with and adopt his master’s interests, he becomes much easier to
control. The breakup of families, common in the transatlantic slave
trade, and possibly a feature of elf society, enabled this. A slaveowner
in the antebellum American South would believe house-elves to be
ideal servants in this respect, as they have few goals of their own,
instead “merg[ing] their interest with their master’s, destroying their
own individual needs” (Zinn 1995: 35). Winky’s deep depression at
her dismissal is clearly based less on her inability to find work than on
her concern for the Crouches and how they will manage without her.
She frets incessantly about “poor Master” and laments that he will
not be able to manage without her: “Master is needing his Winky!”
(Goblet 537).
Thousands of apparently compliant slaves were quick to resurrect
suppressed interests and initiative after emancipation. Is it possible
that house-elves too have simply been, as Hermione claims, “brain-
washed” (Goblet 239 )? This question, too, has stimulated a great deal
of debate among Potter fans and scholars (see, for instance, the work
of Giselle Anatol and Brycchan Carey). Dobby’s joy at freedom from
the Malfoys might suggest that Winky and the Hogwarts elves have
only been socialized to aspire to nothing more than servitude. On the
other hand, the fact that the Hogwarts elves begin refusing to clean
for fear of accidentally picking up clothes (Order 385) suggests that if
this is “brainwashing,” it must have been very effective indeed.
In fact, the attitude of the Hogwarts elves (who act as though
Hermione is “mad and dangerous” when she begins her campaign)
is vehement enough to raise the question of whether they have good
reason to genuinely prefer to serve, as Nick (Goblet 182), Fred and
George (Goblet 239), Hagrid (Goblet 265), and even Dobby (Goblet
379) all argue, or whether this is what sociologists call “false
consciousness”—the inability to perceive one’s own oppression. This
could stem from an ideological predisposition such as the “Protestant
ethic”4 or even a belief that wizards are incapable of actually caring for
themselves properly, as Winky seems to have. Even Dobby, the most
independent elf we encounter, asks Dumbledore not to pay him too
much or give him too much time off (Goblet 379).
If the house-elves’ internalization of their subordination is genuine,
emancipation in America revealed that nearly all slaves had only been
acting content. While doubtless the cruelties and dehumanizations
Azkaban 51
of the slave system did cause many slaves to somewhat internalize

their own repression, their resilience was clearly far greater than their
white masters had believed. Howard Zinn (1995:170) cites Ulrich
Philips’s finding: “A great number of Southerners at all times held
the firm belief that the negro population was so docile . . . and in the
main so friendly toward the white and so contented that a disastrous
insurrection by them would be impossible.” However, it became
clear after emancipation that they “were all laboring under a delu-
sion” when they “believed that these people were content, happy,
and attached to their masters” (according to a South Carolina slave-
holder quoted in Zinn 1995: 189). The house-elves, too, show signs
of being able to act in a coordinated and forcible fashion against the
wishes of wizards when they so choose. In reaction to Hermione’s
suggestion they demand better working conditions, they are able
to quickly remove Harry, Hermione, and Ron from the Hogwarts
kitchens. As we have seen, they are also able and willing to bind,
hurt, and betray wizards, including their own masters when they so
choose.
How do justifications for slavery in the wizarding and Muggle worlds
compare? When Hermione asks Hagrid to suppor her Society for the
Promotion of Elfish Welfare (SPEW), he objects that it is “in their
‘nature’ to look after humans” (Goblet 265). Arguments abounded
that African Americans constituted a “natural” slave class, based on
their reputed physical strength, intellectual unsophistication, and psy-
chological docility. Such arguments were based on pseudoscientific
notions of racial hierarchy. A textbook as late as 1932 argued that
slavery may have been the “necessary transition to civilization” for
people of African descent (Zinn 1995:168). Even Lincoln, the “Great
Emancipator” could not see African Americans as equals, and said on
more than one occasion that he was emancipating slaves in the South
not because of his moral opposition to the practice, but because of his
political commitment to preserve the Union.
A Hogwarts house-elf tells Hermione that “house-elves have no
right to be unhappy when there is work to be done and masters to be
served” (Goblet 538). It was commonplace for American slaveholders
to argue that their slaves, at least, were happy, and this in turn absolved
them of addressing further moral questions about the rectitude of
their actions. The commonality of this argument among American
slaveholders—as well as an explanation thereof—is expressed by a
former slave who observed, “They say slaves are happy, because they
laugh, and are merry. I myself and three or four others, have received
two hundred lashes in the day, and had our feet in fetters; yet, at
night, we would sing and dance, and make others laugh at the rat-
tling of our chains. Happy men we must have been! We did it to keep
down trouble, and to keep our hearts from being completely broken.”
(Zinn 1995: 168). Could wizards be doing the same thing—blinding
themselves to a deeper unhappiness that the house-elves’ cheerfulness
belies?
Many authors have criticized Rowling for not taking a more pro-
gressive stance on slavery—the elves indeed are still (apparently
cheerfully) enslaved when the saga ends, and the final line of the last
novel (before the epilogue) has been read as “embrac[ing] slavery
rather than rejecting it (Anatol 2009: 11).
Evaluating SPEW as a Human Rights Advocacy Organization.
Rowling greatly admires the fearless human rights warriors of times
past, such as Jessica Mitford, of whom she says “she had tremendous
moral courage and did some physically brave things as a human rights
activist” (Fraser 28). So why does she choose to make SPEW not only
farcical (right down to the acronym), but an abject lesson in “how not
to run a political campaign”(Carey in Anatol 2009: 161)?
Those who have witnessed the passion Hermione brings to SPEW
will have some sense of why the nineteenth-century antislavery effort
constituted the first international human rights movement (though
the term “human rights” had not yet entered popular usage). Like
Hermione’s adoption of the issue of elf rights, abolitionist efforts in
the United States and Britain were largely top-down rather than grass-
roots movements, since the enslaved themselves did not have the legal,
political, or social resources to undertake their own defense.
In some cases, these elite bases mitigated for a more cautious
approach than might have come from below, since the need for change
was less imminent to those not directly affected, and elites had their
existing social status to protect. Abraham Lincoln, like Hermione,
argued “with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds,
while acting cautiously in practical politics” (Zinn 1995: 183).
While sometimes outside help is necessary, antislavery efforts by the
unenslaved begs several questions. First, can anyone truly know what
another desires? We have already considered the apparently opposite
viewpoints of Hermione and the house-elves. In turn, the elves’ osten-
sible desire to work without pay calls into question whether Hermione
herself has a right to lobby for changes if those are not changes they
desire. The idea of universal human rights, introduced at the outset
of this chapter, suggests that certain rights apply to everyone, every-
where. But what if an individual does not want something that another
person sees as a right? Is this only because they are “uneducated” or
Azkaban 53
“brainwashed” as Hermione argues (Goblet 239), or are there at least

some rights that are truly nonuniversal, and culturally bounded? This
is probably the single most incendiary debate in current human rights
theory and practice. In fact many advocates and scholars argue that
it is itself paternalist to impose “rights” on those who may not want
them.
Whatever the moral hazards, Hermione clearly believes her cause is
just, and her efforts offer some important lessons about what tactics
and strategies are most effective for human rights advocates and social
movements more generally. In fact, despite the abysmally small mem-
bership of SPEW and its apparent ineffectiveness, she acts as a remark-
ably resourceful political entrepreneur.
Social movement theorists generally propose two models by which
interest groups form: “disturbance” or bottom-up organization, and
the “political entrepreneur” or top-down model, where a leader with
political skill and personal charisma (e.g., a Martin Luther King or
a Gandhi) is able to organize citizens with common interests into a
coherent and effective movement. In practice, most movements form
through a combination of the two. One of SPEW’s most serious
weaknesses is that it has no buy-in from below, despite Hermione’s
best efforts, and is thus an entirely elite or top-down endeavor. This
in and of itself makes it vulnerable to charges of being “illegitimate”
or not genuine—a reflection of her political agenda rather the elves’.
(Similarly, North American and European human rights organi-
zations operating in the developing world are sometimes accused
of failing to understand the real policy priorities of people in poor
countries.) Lack of grassroots support also makes such sustainability
unlikely; even if house-elves are convinced to join, it may be because
of her activism rather than because enduring social and economic
injustices compel it. Without persisting precipitating factors, it is
unlikely that the movement itself will persist. As we will consider
in a later chapter, the DA forms an important counterexample. The
most successful movements for change generally arise from within
the affected population.
Hermione is, however, undaunted by SPEW’s membership issues
and uses a classic arsenal of strategies to create political pressure for
change.
She alights upon one potentially powerful strategy just after
becoming aware of elf enslavement. She observes that “it’s good no-one
at the Prophet knows how mean Mr. Crouch is to elves” (Goblet 154).
She implicitly acknowledges the power of the media to set political
agendas and galvanize public opinion. However, when strategizing
for SPEW, she fails to draw on this insight—ironic, given her skill in
capturing and controlling Rita Skeeter.
The media would be especially useful in broadcasting her message
to a wider audience than the Hogwarts student body. If the wizarding
world is like our own, and younger demographic groups are politically
apathetic, such a broader appeal might meet with success. We also
have reason to believe that the student body at Hogwarts has a slightly
higher socioeconomic profile than the general wizarding popula-
tion, and she might suspect that there will be more sympathy from
wizards who did not grow up with house-elves at their beck and call.
So she decides to reach out to the broader community in Hogsmeade
as well.
She also hedges her bets by devising sets of both long- and short-
term aims. The short-term aims comprise an amelioration of the elves’
condition through guarantees of wages and working conditions. But
she recognizes that real change is only possible by revolutionizing the
legal (and moral) system that allows enslavement to continue. Her
main long-term foci, however, are not disallowing slavery altogether,
but rather allowing elves to be armed (something they, like American
slaves, are forbidden) with wands, as well as creating descriptive rep-
resentation in government—since elves, like all other subject groups,
are greatly underrepresented in the halls of power (Goblet 225). While
there is the risk that such elves will be seen as “tokens,” it is preferable
to having no representation at all.
However, for all her cleverness, Hermione has never been the most
socially savvy of witches, and a certain amount of this is necessary in
politics. Therefore, she makes several classic mistakes that have spelled
the end of larger and better-resourced movements.
First, while her moral stance may be admirable, her stridency may
actually alienate her public. In the American abolitionist movement,
black activists were actually less morally absolute in their public stances
than were white activists like William Lloyd Garrison, publisher of
the influential abolitionist paper The Liberator. Blacks were willing to
use all manner of tactics—in part because the issue for them was not
merely one of moral rectitude but rather of practicality and survival.
There are two main problems that can be engendered by Hermione’s
use of strong moral rhetoric (i.e., styling elf enslavement as “outra-
geous abuse” (Goblet 224)). Such an attitude implicitly divides the
world into a Manichean moral universe, where conciliatory or mod-
erate positions, which might be suboptimal but still progressive, are
not tolerated. If the wizarding world is anything like our own, most
of the public are political moderates and do not favor radical change
Azkaban 55
in any direction. Also, in an ideal universe, adhering to strictly moral

arguments might be enough to convince people of the “rightness”
of an idea, but in our world, Muggle or wizard, people also take into
account their own self-interest. For an argument to be widely effec-
tive, therefore, it must also appeal to people’s pragmatism and self-
interest.
Incorporating more pragmatic principles might seem to be a com-
promise to Hermione and other human rights activists. However, it
is one that would be in the interest of ultimately attaining justice.
For instance, many white Northerners, particularly poorer ones, sup-
ported abolition not because slavery was morally wrong but because
they felt it gave rich Southern landowners an unfair economic advan-
tage. If Hermione could present Hagrid or Ron with practical as well
as moral reasons to oppose slavery, she might do better. For instance,
she could argue that a discontented underclass was being perpetuated
at Hogwarts that might serve to betray Dumbledore from within.
Second, Hogwarts students, like students everywhere, lead busy
lives where time is at a premium. If elves are freed, it is not clear
that the students themselves benefit. But if they do, they will benefit
whether or not they contributed to the abolition effort. This is a classic
example of what Muggle social theorists call a “public goods” problem:
when policy outcomes will benefit the entire community, individuals
can plausibly assume that someone else will shoulder the burden of
pursuing that good. Therefore, most Muggles will not join interest
groups—unless by doing so they will obtain benefits that they can-
not gain otherwise (a “particularistic” good). In all probability, nei-
ther will most wizards. Therefore, many Muggle interest groups offer
members something beyond potential policy outcomes—Consumer
Reports has its valuable magazine, the ONE Campaign has its coolly
conscientious T-shirt, and so forth. Hermione proposes two goods to
lure SPEW supporters. The first, a particularistic good, is the badge. It
is unclear, however, whether a badge that reads “SPEW” really quali-
fies as a “benefit.” The second good is the “sponsored scrub” (Order
159) of the common room, which is (a) not a particularistic benefit,
(b) unlikely to be seen as valuable in and of itself (since this is done for
students by the elves anyway), and (c) also unlikely to raise awareness
as the service is essentially invisible to the students.
Third, Hermione does not seem to fully think through the causal
link between the actions of SPEW and her desired policy outcomes.
While she wisely distinguishes between short-term (more attainable)
and long-term aims, the connection between them is unclear. For
instance, will raising awareness about the working conditions of elves
make wizards more likely to let them use wands? We have no reason
to think so, and wizards might be even less sanguine about arming
the elves if they come to believe elves have reason to be resentful.
Moreover, what SPEW will do to further either of these goals is
unclear. If she conceptualizes the membership list as a petition, to
whom would she present it? The Department for the Regulation and
Control of Magical Creatures? The very name casts elves as the objects
of legislation, not actors in shaping it. And that aside, the power of the
department seems quite limited. If they cannot stop masters like the
Malfoys from threatening their elves with death multiple times a day,
how are they going to compel them to start handing out paychecks?
SPEW’s strategic problems are common among social movement
organizations and especially human rights advocacy groups. Members
so strongly believe in the “rightness” of their cause that they assume
thers need only be made aware of the issue to experience the same
moral revulsion. But in fact, the human rights advocacy organizations
that have been the most effective have also been the most pragmatic.
Amnesty International, perhaps the best known of these organiza-
tions, has adopted a strictly apolitical stance and, for most of its his-
tory, limited itself entirely to working on the release of prisoners of
conscience. Its founders did so not because they felt that other human
rights abuses were unimportant, but rather that focusing on anything
else would erode Amnesty’s efficacy as well as its perceived objectivity.
Its leaders meticulously linked the desired outcome (releasing prison-
ers) to the actors capable of producing it (heads of repressive states),
and then targeted them, as well as those who could in turn apply pres-
sure to them (e.g., donor governments).
Finally, Hermione faces the challenge that acceptance of house-elf
slavery is deeply engrained in wizarding (and elf) culture. She may
need to adjust her expectations to be closer to those of Dumbledore,
who realizes “change will take a long time; hearts and minds sof the
Wizarding community and the house-elf community will have to
change” (Prinzi 2009: 237).
Conclusion
Rowling has said “we should judge how civilized a society is not by
what it prefers to call normal, but by how it treats its most vulner-
able members” (Cited in Nel 26). The injustice in both the wizard
and Muggle worlds is overwhelming. Everywhere we turn we see the
innocent convicted, or taken away without trial, the weak subjugated,
the powerful corrupted.
Azkaban 57
But we can allow the weight of these inequities to crush us into

despair or—like Harry—we can harden our resolve, and mine strength
from anger. We can work to destroy the power structures (such as
parts of the Ministry of Magic) that support injustice, oppression, and
hatred, while working to foster the key components of justice in our
society.
Harry’s world is inhabited by a more diverse range of creatures than
our own, and potential crimes and punishments may include some
that are rather more exotic. Hall has also pointed out several ways in
which the use of magic might necessitate a change in certain com-
ponents of time-honored Muggle legal traditions. For instance, pos-
session of a time turner could make alibis meaningless. (Good thing
they are all smashed!) Identification is difficult when Polyjuice Potion
works so well. And how can one prove mens rea (intent to commit an
act) when the accused claims to have been under the Imperius Curse?
(Hall in Anatol 2003, 154).
But in both worlds, the architecture of law and justice is constructed
of the same essential elements: balance between individual rights and
societal needs, explicitly codified sets of laws, means of monitoring
adherence, equality before the law, presumption of innocence, honest
evidentiary rules, the swift dispensation of justice, fair consideration by
a jury of one’s peers, and a rational system of consequences. Failure to
meet any of these criteria undermines the legitimacy of governmental
authority, and risks replacing governance based on popular consent
and loyalty with that based on coercion and fear. It also leads to one
of Rowling’s central political messages: that an unjust law should not
be followed (Brown 109), and that any regime that embraces such laws
is not a legitimate one.
Chapter 4
P u r e bl oods a n d Mu dbl oods :

R ac e , Spe c i e s, a n d Pow e r
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Neimoller, Protestant Pastor and Nazi Resistor
“I’d say that it’s one short step from ‘Wizards first’ to ‘Purebloods
first,’ and then to ‘Death Eaters,’” replied Kingsley. “We’re all
human, aren’t we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth
saving.”
—Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (440)
Perhaps the single most important political theme in Rowling’s works

is the simultaneous power and danger of racial and genetic politics.
In mapping this out, she draws not only from obvious examples of
Nazi racial ideology and practice but from less dramatic examples of
discrimination and hatred in more apparently democratic societies.
We begin our journey through the political aspects of Harry’s world
by delineating a typology of wizarding attitudes toward Muggles,
Muggle-born wizards, and “half-bloods,” and exploring the ways in
which these intangible attitudes translate into forms of legal, eco-
nomic, and physical harm. We then examine how wizard society and
law treats other magical creatures, a topic we began considering with

our examination of elf slavery.
First, let’s get the elephant (giant?) out of the room. Clearly there
are greater differences between various kinds of magical creatures, or
even between different kinds of humans, in Harry’s world than in
ours. But in both worlds, these differences are used in similar psycho-
logical, social, and political ways.
Both Suman Gupta and Andrew Blake object that the racial analogy
is flawed, because Muggles simply lack the abilities of magical folk—
they are at a disadvantage relative to wizards that is not true of dif-
ferent Muggle races. But is this really so different from the dilemmas
faced by Muggles? Societies, whether wizard or Muggle, always include
individuals of differing background, capability, belief, language, and
behavior. Moreover, “the historical and anthropological evidence sug-
gests that outsiders and strangers are not inevitably subjected to hos-
tility. Empathy, curiosity, tolerance, dialogue, and co-operation are
human traits that are as common as hostility and prejudice” (Rattansi
3). So some differences only matter when we decide that they do.
For instance, while Americans can be of any religion, economic
orientations, or ethnic background, all of these characteristics (and
more) have been used as criteria for inclusion (or exclusion) in other
national citizenries.
Being a citizen of a modern nation-state is a bit different from being
a member of a nation. Modern states have clear citizenship criteria.
Membership in the “imagined community” (Anderson 1999) that we
call a nation is more fluid and therefore prone to political manipula-
tion. In reality, despite the fact that nationalist leaders and scholars
have often argued that there is a “natural” and identifiable people that
belong to a nation, defining people has always been to some extent
arbitrary. Let’s take an example of one of the most arguably sensible
forms of defining citizens, parentage. Let’s say I am born in France,
and my parents are both French, and their parents were all French for
as long as we can document, there is probably little question of my
“Frenchness.” What, then, if one of my great, great grandparents is
not French (meaning that I am only 31/32 French?) Probably most
observers would, too, deem me French. But what if we reduce that
proportion to 15/16? Probably still French. But what if we get down
to a half, or a quarter? I am still more French than any other one
national background, yes, but am I still really French?
The problem is obvious: there is no one clear place that we can draw
the line where a person stops being French and starts being “other”. To
complicate the problem more, that hypothetical shift probably happens
P u r ebl oods a nd Mu dbl oods 61
at different places for different people. To take another example, this

time from history, Nazi racial ideology was able to socially construct a
Jewish race, “even in absence of clear biological evidence.” In this case,
a cultural practice, religion, “functioned as a racial marker” (Rattansi
6). The extent to which Jews were regarded as religiously rather than
racially different has been a slow process that has occurred over the
course of the last several decades as part of a social and political process
of inclusion (Rattansi 7).
Similarly, the social and political history in the United States dem-
onstrates shifting definitions of “black.” The absurdity of establishing
precise formulae is demonstrated by the “one drop” rule that existed
in many Southern states, “which implied that any black ancestry, how-
ever far back, consigned an individual to the wrong side of the white/
black divide, determining (disadvantaging) where s/he could live,
what kind of work was available, and whether marriage or even rela-
tionships could take place with a white partner” (Rattansi 7).
This is in part because race, like magical status, contains both bio-
logical and cultural elements. Rattansi goes on to make the important
point that “the biological and cultural appear to combine in variable
proportions in any definition of a racial group, depending upon the
group and the historical period in question. And racial status, as in the
‘whitening’ of Jews, Irish, and others, is subject to political negotiation
and transformation” (Rattansi 8). The differences between people,
and between wizards, only become politically relevant, then, when
they are made to be.
Making Difference Matter

Crisis. It will come as no surprise to anyone living in the current eco-
nomic moment that one of the things that makes these differences
most relevant is political crisis. If I am doing well, there is little reason
to begrudge my neighbor anything. But when I feel threatened (for
whatever reason) I am more likely to become envious and resentful.
It’s easiest to be suspicious of those that we identify as different
from ourselves, and to imagine they have some sort of advantage.
Brown’s intensive work on prejudice in Harry’s world, which draws
on the work of sociologist Gordon Allport, identifies the “4 Is” that
maintain hierarchy: ignorance, indifference, insecurity, and intoler-
ance (Brown 61). While government can remedy the first two through
education, its effects can be much greater on the third—and yet it is
precisely when its citizens are insecure that governments have, histor-
ically, been most prone to encouraging scapegoating.
This is why nation-states in crisis are most prone to become intol-

erant of difference and suspicious of outsiders—what political scien-
tists colorfully call “xenophobia.” (So, yes, Xenophilius Lovegood’s
first name literally means “love of difference!”) And it also means that
those who wish to exaggerate the importance of difference in a polity
may, too, exaggerate how threatening a crisis is.
The most famous example of this in the modern Muggle world is
Hitler’s Germany. Rowling has said that she visited the Holocaust
Museum in Washington, DC, after inventing the Blood Status cat-
egories, and was chilled by the similarities (Waters 203). Because of
the scale of the horrors of the Third Reich, observers often lose sight
of the fact that ordinary Germans were primed for Hitler’s radical
appeals by the deep economic and social crisis into which they were
thrown following defeat in World War II. Staudinger has argued that
“the victory of Hitler and ‘his gang’ was the necessary consequence
of the dismantlement of the Christian, hierarchical, rurally based
social order of pre-Bismarckian Germany” (Staudinger 10). But more
proximately, the peace settlement of the Treaty of Versailles imposed
upon Germany steep reparations while failing to make provision for
Germany’s need to rebuild. In attempting to ensure that defeated
Germany would not be able to easily threaten Europe again, the Allies
failed to anticipate the suffering of many sectors of German society (as
well as to appreciate the effects this could have beyond its borders).
Inflation increased from 40 percent between 1929 and 1930 to over
a million percent between 1935 and 1936. The mark collapsed and
money became worthless.
With military defeat and economic turmoil came a widespread sense
of lost identity. Many psychologists argue that the single most consis-
tent predictor of individuals’ sense of self-worth is gainful employment.
Germany after World War I was suffering not just a crisis of national
pride, but of individual pride as well. Without the traditional sources
of identity and pride, people needed a new source, some larger cause,
which could motivate them undertake the massive economic, indus-
trial, and social recovery that was necessary. In an “atmosphere of
discontent created by the state of national humiliation following a lost
war, the peace treaties, and social and economic hopelessness,” Hitler
found a population “ready to gorge themselves on his teachings, to
obey him blindly, and to carry his will to the people” (Staudinger
17). The new ideas he offered, benign at first (like Umbridge’s ini-
tial statements at Hogwarts!), “were appealing because they offered
a new, optimistic world view, which contained elements familiar to
Germans in their former ideas of nation, national pride, and folk

ideas” (Staudinger 19).
Political entrepreneurs. While crisis may create individual resent-
ment, this can only be aggregated into political will through the
actions of a “political entrepreneur,” the concept that we introduced
in the last chapter. The term does not necessarily carry a negative con-
notation, but refers to any individual who transforms unorganized
popular sentiment into structured political action. But political entre-
preneurs often end up manipulating this sentiment for their own ends.
Any entrepreneur must also foster a leadership cadre over which he has
tight control, but with whom the masses can also closely identify. For
instance, “Hitler established the link between himself and the leading
group, the acting forces and the masses, and created from the begin-
ning of the movement a firm mutual interrelationship between those
above and below—a plan that guaranteed action as well as continuous
control of the followers” (Staudinger 19).
Thus, the greatest Dark Wizard in Harry’s world in fact acts to a
great extent like a conventional political entrepreneur. He holds his
Death Eaters close through not only fear but also a sense of familial
closeness (his “true family” (Goblet 646)) and pride. Just as Hitler
skillfully used symbols of traditional German nationalism to lend
legitimacy to his racial ideology, so Voldemort claims to be restoring
old, traditional standards of magical behavior, selectivity, and empow-
erment that have been lost. As purebloods lost power after Voldemort’s
disappearance, they came to increasingly resent their status, and to
look for someone to blame.
Similarly, Hitler saw that a middle class badly in need of inspiration
was very pleased to have somewhere to point the finger—for them, this
was the first step in doing something to improve their lot. They could
not directly target the victorious Allies or the global economy, but they
could target the Jewish shopkeeper on the corner. Hitler’s ideology, as
all ideologies do, worked to “elucidate complex realities and reduce
them to understandable and manageable terms” (Hunt 16).
The very inconsistencies in Voldemort’s ideology and statements
underline the socially constructed, rather than natural, importance
of Blood Status. For instance, many have observed that if purity of
blood is as important as Voldemort claimed to believe, half-bloods
should have suffered mightily under his regime. They did not, how-
ever, primarily because there are so few 100 percent pure-bloods left
that Voldemort would have had no one left to rule. (And, technically,
he’d have to discriminate against himself.)
Making Magical Difference Matter

One of the most poignant scenes in Hallows is the depiction of young
Severus telling young Lily about Hogwarts. Since she is Muggle-born,
someone from the school will have to come and explain everything to
her parents. Lily asks him:
“Does it make a difference, being Muggle-born?”

Snape hesitated. His black eyes, eager in the greenish gloom, moved
over the pale face, the dark red hair.
“No,” he said. “It doesn’t make any difference.” (Hallows 666)
But Lily of course soon learned while being Muggle born makes no
difference for wizarding ability, many “purebloods” believe that it
makes a great deal of difference to the witch or wizard’s legitimate
claim to magical power and privilege.
Just like nationality, magical status has both biological and cultural
elements—the world is not simply divided into Muggles and wizards.
Surprisingly, given the fact that Muggles are not to know of the magical
population, there are a fairly large number of “half-bloods”—the off-
spring of one Muggle parent and one magical parent. So based on the
combination of one’s own magical abilities and those of one’s parents,
we can delineate four categories of humans: Muggles, Muggle-borns,
half-bloods, and purebloods.
Before we move into considering the attitudes in the overall wiz-
arding community toward , let’s take a moment to consider the ques-
tion of Squibs and what their existence tells us about wizard genetics.
Squibs are, of course, the offspring of (one? two?) magical parents
that have no apparent functioning magical powers themselves. This
seems to be a continuum—Neville Longbottom is afraid for his safety
in their second year because “they went for Filch first, and everyone
knows I’m practically a Squib!” (Chamber185). Parentage is no guar-
antee of wizarding ability, because the wizarding gene is one that can
crop up in some unexpected places, according to Rowling. “Muggle
borns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree,
in some cases many, many generations back. That gene resurfaces in
some unexpected places” (quoted in Brown 42). It also seems that the
wizarding gene can be expressed to varying degrees, as in Neville’s
case. Similarly, the QuikSpell correspondence course that Harry inad-
vertently sees on Filch’s desk seems to promise that it’s possible to do
at least some magic even if you are a Squib.
But is this true? Or would Quikspell only work for someone

like Neville whose powers are underdeveloped, certainly, but not
absent? We’re not really given much hope for Squibs by the little
evidence we have. We never see Filch perform a single act of magic
(save for, possibly, his weird connection with Mrs. Norris). Poor
Mrs. Figg, also a Squib, certainly seems to be able to describe the
effects of dementors, but her testimony at Harry’s trial leaves us with
the impression she’s probably never seen one. So there seem to be
some children from wizarding families who just lack magical power
altogether. Perhaps they are the result of the wizarding gene being
missing altogether, or some mutation in it. This would also explain
witches and wizards whose powers exist but are clearly either badly
damaged or beyond their control, such as Ariana and Merope. In
Merope’s case, of course, inbreeding could have caused no end of
chaos in her genome. But in Ariana’s case, we appear to have some
other kind of mutation, for she seems the only one in the family
with that sort of abnormality.
Whatever their genetics, clearly the wizarding world’s attitudes
toward Squibs are not as progressive as we might hope. Instead, at
least when Albus and Aberforth were growing up, Squibs were kept
behind closed doors and not talked about, much as many disabilities
were until recently, all over the world.
Squibs, though, are quite rare. The most important targets of intol-
erance in the magical world are Muggles and Muggle-borns. We will
examine the range of attitudes in Harry’s world toward each of these
groups, before looking at the way that intolerance translates into dis-
criminatory action. Half-bloods are treated much better—certainly
far better than half-Jews were, for instance, in the Third Reich.
Attitudes toward Muggles. Across the wizarding world, attitudes
toward Muggles include egalitarianism, disregard, avid curiosity,
paternalism, and outright hatred.
First, there are clearly those who believe that Muggles, while sep-
arate, should be seen as equal. As Kingsley Shacklebolt declares in
the quotation at the start of the chapter, “I’d say that it’s one short
step from ‘Wizards first’ to ‘Purebloods first,’ and then to ‘Death
Eaters,’” replied Kingsley. “We’re all human, aren’t we? Every human
life is worth the same, and worth saving.” Importantly, Kingsley
is not simply arguing for equality of magical and nonmagical folk.
According to him, if we state that being nonmagical makes Muggles
less valuable, or less deserving of basic rights, the same logic can be
extended to argue that being related to Muggles makes Muggle-borns
or half-bloods less valuable or deserving. This is precisely the argu-

ment made by Martin Neimoller in the other quotation that opens
this chapter.
Second, there are those who basically give them no thought—they
consider the Muggle world to be separate, and not worth much notice.
Dumbledore tells us that few in the magical world read Muggle news-
papers (Goblet 602) and that few take notice of crimes that happen to
Muggles, such as the unfortunate Frank Bryce. This might remind
some readers of the relative inattention some city newspapers pay to
crimes that happen in more impoverished areas.
Third, a few are utterly fascinated by Muggles and quite admire
them. But much of this fascination is based on a subconscious
paternalism, and a sense of wonder at how Muggles get along without
magic. The most obvious example is Mr. Weasley’s obsession with
everything from cars and telephones to common car batteries, but
it seems a widespread attitude, judging by Hagrid’s comments on,
for instance, parking meters. (“The stuff these Muggles dream up,
eh?”, Stone X.) This kind of fascination is reminiscent of the exoti-
cism often directed toward subjugated peoples under colonialism—
at the very time that their homeland was being exploited and their
legal rights stripped, a tamed, stereotyped image of such peoples was
often circulated. For instance, in the United States , “with the brutal
abasement of the Indian in real life went a tendency to ennoble him
in myth” (Hunt 55).
In the Muggle world, these stereotupes tended to exaggerate the
differences between the groups, and to cast indigenous peoples as
less evolved and less civilized than the colonizers—rather than just
differently civilized. (The title of Mr. Weasley’s “Misuse of Muggle
Artifacts Act” even evokes the excavation of some long-extinct, more
primitive culture.) Based on this assumption, colonizers could easily
go on to argue that they knew what was better for the natives rather
than did the natives themselves. This sort of paternalism disguised
conquest as altruism, and, in its name, justified all manner of violence
and injustice. For instance, McKinley claimed for the United States “a
right and duty to establish colonies [and], help ‘oppressed peoples’”
(Hunt 38), while “the ‘savage’ and ‘alien’ populations in previously
acquired territories had been incapable of self-government and so been
made ‘wards’ of Washington” (Hunt 40). Thus, many Muggle visitors
to Harry’s world can picture a dark shadow behind even something
as benign as Mr. Weasley’s Muggle Protection Act. (Even Hagrid,
not one to be elitist about Blood Status, clearly uses “Muggle” as a
pejorative term in and of itself on more than one occasion [“I’d like
ter see a great Muggle like you stop him,” (Stone 52)], “an’ it’s your
bad luck you grew up in a family o’ the biggest Muggles I ever laid
eyes on” [Stone 53]).
Finally, we know that for many wizards, nonmagical humans are
not fully human at all—and may be no more than animals. We know
that Sirius’s cousin introduced a bill to make Muggle-hunting legal,
and under Voldemort’s administration at Hogwarts, students are
explicitly taught that “Muggles are like animals, stupid and dirty . . .
they drove wizards into hiding by being vicious toward them . . . the
natural order is being reestablished” (Hallows 574). Morfin fathom
why abusing a Muggle would be illegal, because he does not see them
as fully human. “[I] taught a filthy Muggle a lesson, that’s illegal now,
is it?” (Prince 206).
And it’s only this type of attitude that explains laws against mis-
cegenation, or race-mixing, in the United States right through the
mid-twentieth century, or Gaunt’s revulsion at Merope: ‘“My daugh-
ter—pure-blooded descendant of Salazar Slytherin—hankering after a
filthy, dirt-veined Muggle? . . . You disgusting little Squib, you filthy
little blood traitor!’” (Prince 210).
Placed in the context of the discussion of human rights in the pre-
ceding chapter, it’s this one idea—that some humans are less human
than others—that might be the most dangerous in all of Voldemort’s
(or Hitler’s) ideology. For if accepted, the entire philosophical and
legal architecture of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian morality col-
lapses. Every major argument made about just treatment of others—
from Jesus, to Hume, to Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson—rests on the
idea that people are born with certain unalienable rights that are theirs
simply by virtue of being human, and in no way dependent on their
race, gender, religion, sexual orientation—or magical status. And it’s
the ability to start seeing others as less than human that allows us to
treat them in ways we would never want to be treated ourselves. This is
how, from 1935, Jews (and even half-Jews) in Germany were stripped
of citizenship and therefore most of their basic rights, granting legal
legitimacy to their persecution and opening the way to harsher laws.
Anti-Muggle Discrimination. But how does a political entrepreneur
turn these underlying attitudes into politically relevant mass senti-
ment? One way is by explicitly linking the target group to concrete
sources of mass discontent. Otherwise, the target group may be seen as
strange, but not dangerous, and most people will not conscion political
action against a group without a clear threat. So Umbridge’s lovely
little pamphlet, “Mudbloods and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful
Pure-Blood Society” (Hallows 249), is actually in the finest tradition
of propaganda that attempts to direct general public dissatisfaction

toward a particular (usually vulnerable) target. In Nazi propaganda,
Jews were blamed for, among other things, the loss of World War I,
the credit crisis, and the spread of disease. Yes, propaganda can be an
extremely powerful tool in shaping public opinion, and doing so is cru-
cial if a leader bases his legitimacy on doing the will of the people.
In fact, such a strategy has proved to be so effective that as a phe-
nomenon in social psychology it is known as “blaming the victim.”
For political entrepreneurs, the surest way to validate discriminatory
actions is to claim they are merely a response to something perpe-
trated by the target group. So, for instance, Draco claims that the
teachers favor Hermione because she excels despite her Muggle par-
entage (Chamber 52).
What kinds of appeals work? Ideologies like Hitler’s and Voldemort’s
were so powerful in part because they were “rich in symbols and
mythology . . . To be effective, public rhetoric must draw on values
and concerns widely shared and easily understood by its audience”
(Hunt 15). So we know that Voldemort was actually tapping into
a deep vein of discontent in the wizarding world when he began to
build the Death Eater corps the first time. The idea that the world
would be better off with wizards being out in the open and ruling
Muggles went back at least as far as Grindelwald, a hierarchy reflected
in the fountain at the Ministry, even before Voldemort replaced it. As
Harry leaves his hearing at the Ministry before the start of his fifth
year, “he looked up into the handsome wizard’s face, but up close,
[he] thought he looked rather weak and foolish. The witch was wear-
ing a vapid smile like a beauty contestant, and from what Harry knew
of goblins and centaurs, they were most unlikely to be caught staring
this soppily at humans of any description. Only the house-elf’s atti-
tude of creeping servility looked convincing” (Phoenix 156).
Another introductory step in mobilizing political sentiment is iden-
tifying and labeling the target group. In every polity that has engaged
in official mass discrimination, some form of registration or docu-
mentation of that group has occurred. This can be as primitive as
the affixing of a yellow star to the clothing, and as sophisticated as
maintaining a biometric database of persons traveling in and out of
the country. In the magical world, of course, it takes the form of the
Muggle-Born Registration Commission.
Ironically, identification and registration are necessary is only
required when membership in a category is not otherwise obvious!
Thus the very act of identifying underscores the arbitrary nature of
assignment to such categories.
Identification allows for singling out members of a target group.

At its most basic level, this takes the form of individual abuse and
verbal or physical violence, but committed by individuals, not the
state. In this category, we can include most of what today would be
termed hate crimes. Note that this is precisely what many of Malfoy’s
actions would be in our world. (The United States Federal Bureau of
Investigation defines a hate crime as “a criminal offense committed
against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole
or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin” (http://www.fbi.
gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview). Since
crimes like Muggle-baiting (exploding toilets, shrinking keys) are by
definition motivated by bias against the targets’ nonmagical status,
they are, unambiguously, hate crimes.
One of the most toxic modes of intimidation is targeting not the
group itself, but its sympathizers. This is particularly anathema to de-
mocracy because it perverts public opinion, creating an exaggerated
sense of fear and isolation in the target population. It may be behind
Arthur’s back that Draco says “Arthur Weasley loves Muggles so much
he should snap his wand in half and go and join them . . . . You’d never
know the Weasleys were pure-bloods, the way they behave” (Chamber
222). But Arthur’s appreciation of Muggles has obviously held him
back in more explicit and straightforward ways as well. He knows, for
instance, that it is “fondness for Muggles that has held him back at
the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding
pride” (Goblet 711).
After they reassemble, Voldemort’s first words to the Death
Eaters express his disbelief that they thought he could be defeated by
“that champion of commoners, of Mudbloods and Muggles, Albus
Dumbledore” (Goblet 648), who he later calls a “Muggle-loving fool”
(Goblet 657). So when the Death Eaters return to power, Draco is not
just making idle threats when he predicts that it will be “Mudbloods
and Muggle-lovers first!” (Goblet 729).
In a functioning democracy, however, victims of hate crimes can
turn to the law for protection, at least formally speaking. Even if they
are not prosecuted, the acts are those of individuals, not sanctioned by
the state itself. When discrimination is formally embraced by the state,
it becomes a form of state terror—and the state ceases to be a democ-
racy in any meaningful sense. The most basic way the state begins to
shift from protection to discrimination is through spatial segregation.
Wizards do self-segregate from Muggles in many cases, but it seems
only to be a matter of convenience. More important are educational,
employment, and economic segregation and discrimination—

although, when it comes to magical education and employment, there
are in fact clear practical reasons for such segregation.
Attitudes toward Muggle-Born. It is here that there is a real test
of wizarding acceptance of difference, since Wizards actually interact
with Muggle-borns on a daily basis.
We see a similar range of attitudes as we saw toward Muggles. Some
regard all wizards as equal before the law, and, fortunately, this appears
to be the formal stance of the Ministry when Harry first discovers the
magical world. This position is explicitly expressed by the Ministry
official Mr. Ogden when he comes to investigate Morfin’s attack on
Tom Riddle, Sr.: “I am afraid that neither your ancestors nor mine
have anything to do with the matter in hand” (Prince 208).
There are also those who believe themselves to be tolerant in their
attitudes, but subconsciously see Muggle-borns as a category apart.
Many will recall Joe Biden referring to then-Senator Barack Obama as
“the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright
and clean and a nice-looking guy,” during the2008 US presidential
campaign. The remark caused an uproar, because logically, his com-
ment implied that such qualities were not the norm. Biden caught
flak for givinga backhanded compliment at best, and being a closeted
racist at worst.
It’s the same sort of attitude that characterizes wizards like
Professor Slughorn, who says to Harry, “your mother was Muggle-
born, of course . . . couldn’t believe it when I found out. Thought she
must have been pure-blood, she was so good” (Prince 70). This makes
Harry suspect that he may secretly put too much emphasis on one’s
heritage; he seemed “much too surprised that a Muggle-born should
make a good witch” (Prince 74).
A third category of attitudes cloaks deeply discriminatory beliefs
in the trappings of science. Staudinger argues that Hitler’s racial ide-
ology, supported by both scientific and quasi-religious elements, played
a far greater role in galvanizing the German people against the Jews
than any preexisting social or economic crisis (Staudinger 7; for a con-
trasting view, see Franz Neumann’s Behemoth). Scientific techniques
developing in the early twentieth century were easy to hijack by Nazi
pseudoscientists, largely because they were not yet widely understood.
So, scientists in Germany were bribed, threatened, or brainwashed
into publicly presenting evidence that demonstrated a racial hierarchy.
This hierarchy was used to make several dangerous and inaccurate
arguments: that there was a biologically meaningful “Aryan” race, that
this race was superior to others, that only this race should make up the
German state, that the Aryan people had been unjustly deprived of the
opportunity to economically develop due to the “interest slavery” of
the Jewish people, and that this justified the expansion of the fictional
“Aryan” race into more of Central Europe—through the removal of
“parasitic” races, if necessary.
Significantly, such a hierarchy was not the isolated brainchild of a
single rogue regime. It had been asserted, in the support of similar
policy ends, in both U.S. and British foreign policy. Hunt notes that
racial theory was, at best, an easy heuristic for early US foreign policy
makers. “Rather than having to spend long hours trying—perhaps
inconclusively—to puzzle out the subtle patterns of other cultures,
the elite interested in policy had at hand in the hierarchy of race a
key to reducing other peoples and nations to readily comprehensible
and familiar terms” (Hunt 52). General William Sherman, the famous
Civil War general who burned his way through the Southern states,
wrote in 1868, “The more we can kill this year, the less will have to
be killed the next year, for the more I see of these Indians the more
convinced I am that all have to be killed or be maintained as a species
of pauper. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous” (quoted
in Hunt 55). (Note even the use of the term species here.)
Why use science to justify actions that clearly at some level require
a quasireligious zeal? Hitler and his propagandists had a final solution
in mind from quite early on in; we can even find it referenced in Mein
Kampf, written while Hitler was a prisoner of war during World War
I. But they were not such zealots that they thought they could present
the full extent of their plan to the German people without resistance.
Goering and other of Hitler’s lieutenants were all too aware of the
possibility of a boomerang effect should they move too quickly. This
was an era in which power transitions were all too often accompanied
by violence—the National Socialists had seized power through vio-
lence, and were aware they could be removed that way. So they needed
to build their case gradually, logically, with overwhelming “evidence”
and by appealing simultaneously to Germans’ sense of history, their
rationality, and their quasireligious national mythos. (Hitler explic-
itly drew parallels between himself and figures from German myth
and Norse paganism. Like the Arthurian legend in Britain, the histo-
ricity of these figures is contested, and thus they have sometimes been
viewed as legitimate role models for modern political decisions.)
By supporting racial policies with such a wide range of appeals,
Hitler’s propagandists ensured there was something for everyone.
A careful examination of the rhetoric of the wizarding community
certainly reveals a pseudoscientific element to the pureblood obsession.
Recall that after Hermione’s unfortunate tooth-growth incident,

Malfoy refers to her as an object, rather than a person, and then uses
a nickname that connotes a different species. “You’re not telling me
someone asked that to the ball? Not the long-molared Mudblood?”
(Goblet 404).
More dramatically, Mrs. Black’s portrait seems to have no end of
colorful epithets for Muggle-borns, many of which imply that they are
a lower order of being. Filth, scum, by-products of dirt and vileness,
half-breeds, mutants, freaks . . . the list could take up the remainder
of this chapter. But she is using a litany of all too real slurs that have
been deployed against racial minorities. Racist slurs in both the
United States and the United Kingdom (and elsewhere) have com-
pared racial minorities to rats and parasites, implying that they are
dirty by nature and comportment. (For instance, Voldemort declares.
“We shall cut away the canker that infects us until only those of the
true blood remain” (Hallows 11), and Draco is quick on the draw as
well: “But don’t touch my hand, now . . . don’t want a Mudblood
sliming it up” [Goblet 298]. “If you’re wondering what the smell is,
Mother, a Mudblood just walked in” [Prince 112].) Similar lines of
reasoning compare the “out-group” to animals, implying again that
some humans are less human than others. This is the Muggle-world
referent for Voldemort’s tormenting of Bellatrix and Narcissa over
Tonks’s marrying Lupin: “You must be so proud . . . will you babysit
the pups?” (Hallows 10). His choice of the word “mate” a few lines on
conveys the same thing. “She would have us all mate with Muggles . . .
or, no doubt, werewolves” (Hallows 12).
If there were any doubt that the importance of difference is mal-
leable, it should be put to rest by this simple fact: the ones who tend
to want the most to reify difference in society are those who feel their
own status is most contingent. Just as for some municipalities in Nazi
Germany, even one-eighth Jewish was Jewish, half-bloods are little
better than Muggle-borns for some in the magical world.
Hitler and Voldemort are both half-bloods of a sort, and they both
have things to prove: Voldemort that he doesn’t need the Muggle
father who abandoned him and his mother, Hitler that he was the
ideal-typical German, despite his substandard performance as a mil-
itary officer and his physical and mental defects. While we all know
that Voldemort was named for his Muggle father, Tom Riddle, fewer
know that Hitler was a quarter Jewish (and not German-born, but
Austrian). It is those who themselves feel part of potentially margin-
alized groups that are most keen to reify the differences that create
“out-groups” of others. The more institutionalized this hierarchy, the

more secure their position at the top is.
An interesting side-note that illustrates this: not only did Hitler
attempt to hide the facts of his heritage, he attempted to appear closer
to the Aryan “ideal” by performing a bit of mid-twentieth-century
airbrushing. His official portrait, now hanging in the Imperial War
Museum in London, depicts the brown-eyed, brown-haired Führer
with blue eyes and blonde hair. Voldemort, similarly, seems to have
at least implied to his Death Eaters that he is a pureblood—after all,
many of them have forgotten that he was ever called Tom Riddle.
While we never hear him actually make this claim, he certainly talks
far more about Salazar Slytherin than any other ancestors, and we can
infer that some of them have conveniently forgotten any other facts of
his heritage. Remember that Bellatrix rebukes Harry during the battle
at the Ministry in his fifth year: “You dare speak his name with . . .
your half-blood’s tongue.” Harry quickly reminds her of Voldemort’s
true parentage and speculates that Voldemort has been passing him-
self off as a pureblood. (Phoenix 784).
Anti-Muggle-Born Discrimination. We can examine the same con-
tinuum from formal to informal discrimination that we did earlier in
the examination of wizarding attitudes toward Muggles. First, identi-
fication. Informally, this, of course, takes the form of the heinous slur:
“Mudbloods.” When we first encounter this term in Harry’s second
year, like Harry we only realize its seriousness from the reactions of
others. This gives us the opportunity to learn, with Harry, that “it’s
about the most insulting thing he could think of . . . Mudblood’s a
really foul name for someone who is Muggle-born—you know, non-
magic parents. There are some wizards—like the Malfoy’s family—
who think they’re better than everyone else because they’re what
people call pure-blood” (Chamber 116).
This kind of name-calling is part of a continuum of verbal violence
can often escalate to physical violence. Dumbledore’s own father, of
course, was sentenced to Azkaban for Muggle-killing and we know that
“some, indeed, were disposed to praise his father’s actions” (Hallows
16–17). We see the speed and pervasiveness with which such terror can
spread in Harry’s second year; and Malfoy doesn’t help by constantly
reminding us that “Enemies of the Heir, beware!” means that “you’ll be
next, Mudbloods!”(Chamber 139), since Slytherin believed only those
born of magical blood to be worthy to study magic (Chamber 151). In
fact, Malfoy seems to absolutely relish such tactics, especially when it
allows him to consider Muggle-born little better than Muggle:
“Hadn’t you better be hurrying along, now? You wouldn’t like her
spotted, would you?” . . . He nodded at Hermione.
“What’s that supposed to mean?” said Hermione defiantly.
“Granger, they’re after Muggles,” said Malfoy. “D’you want to be
showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around . . .
they’re moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh.”
“Hermione’s a witch,” Harry snarled.
“Have it your own way, Potter,” said Malfoy, grinning maliciously. “If
you think they can’t spot a Mudblood, stay where you are.”
. . . Several people nearby screamed. Malfoy chuckled softly. (Goblet
122)
Unfortunately it is all too easy for individual and private discrimina-

tion to turn into sanctioned discrimination, and undesirable becomes
illegal. So by the time Harry, Ron, and Hermione are on the run,
dining hall slurs have become legal labels, and are ripe to be rounded
up by Snatchers, who are rewarded by the Ministry for their cap-
ture (Hallows 382). Similarly, name-calling is hurtful, but more dan-
gerous is making it official with the creation of the concept of Blood
Status by the Ministry, monitored by the Muggle-born Registration
Committee. The fact that this distinction is sanctioned by the state (a)
expands the conceptual territory of legislation to include Blood Status
and (b) makes Blood Status politically relevant.
Finally, as discussed in Chapter 2, to institutionalize the quality of
Blood Status is to raise its visibility, through the very fact of naming
it, creating a pool of resources devoted to it, and delineating a cadre
(however small) of individuals who now have a stake in its continued
significance. Registering people, while itself perhaps a neutral act, is
also a necessary precondition for differentiating between groups for
social, legal, or economic reasons. We we don’t even have to look to
the history of ethnic cleansing for examples—these legal distinctions
are made in every country in the world that takes a census. When
rights and privileges are made contingent on officially defined catego-
ries, historian Nancy Reagin reminds us, falsification is almost guaran-
teed—and there were plenty of faked family trees during theNazi era
as well (Reagin 140). While Reagin argues that the Death Eaters did
not seem to try to reorganize society in as comprehensive a fashion as
did the Third Reich (147), by the height of Voldemort’s power, we see
the exclusion of Muggle-borns from nearly every aspect of society.
One of the most pervasive and destructive ways these distinctions
can be used is to create educational segregation. Children learn some
of their most important lessons about themselves and others when
they first start to encounter those different from themselves in the

classroom. It is hard to say which group is most harmed, in terms of
the formation of their characters, by the (ongoing, de facto) segrega-
tion of races in US public schools, for instance. This is what the US
Supreme Court meant when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) that “separate is inherently unequal.”
While, as Reagin has noted, Voldemort sets up no Hitler Youth
equivalent (147), he eventually turns Hogwarts into an all-Pureblood
institution, and a vehicle for indoctrination. He is able to do this in
part because pureblood exclusionists in the wizarding world have long
been circulating many of the same tired arguments that racists in the
United States did when they fought against integration. They claim
that the “other sort” (as Draco puts it in his first meeting with Harry)
is untrustworthy, because they feel too much allegiance to the Muggle
world from which they come (“[Slytherin] disliked taking students of
Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy” [Chamber
150]). They argue that the “other sort” are unprepared (“They’re
just not the same, they’ve never been brought up to know our ways”
[Stone 78]), and that they’ll bring down the level at which the teach-
ers have to pitch their courses (“Father actually considered sending
me to Durmstrang rather than Hogwarts . . . you know his opinion
of Dumbledore—the man’s such a Mudblood-lover and Durmstrang
doesn’t admit that sort of riffraff . . . Father says Durmstrang takes a far
more sensible line than Hogwarts about the Dark Arts. Durmstrang
students actually learn them, not just the defense rubbish we do”
[Goblet 165]). Some readers will indeed have picked up on the fact
that Durmstrang plays with the German term “Sturm und Drang”
(literally Storm and Stress), an eighteenth- and nineteenth-century lit-
erary and arts movement of which the anti-Semitic Richard Wagner
was an adherent.
Educational segregation is also particularly damaging due to its
ripple effects throughout society. If excluded from a certain kind of
education, a person will later de facto be excluded from certain jobs,
even if this exclusion is not legally sanctioned. Work and other forms
of economic segregation naturally also lead to political disempower-
ment too, and can culminate in “social death.” In Hitler’s Germany,
“social death included the social isolation, economic destruction,
and the political disenfranchisement of “undesireables,” because they
now stood outside of the moral community of those to whom one
owed consideration or any moral duties” (Reagin 142). The same
arguments cited in favor of economic segregation above, if circulated
often and widely enough, can become accepted to the point that the
majority is primed to accept that some of their fellows are less equal
than others (to misappropriate Orwell). Similarly, informal boycotts
were a key tool used in Nazi Germany to galvanize public sentiment,
and the Malfoys attempt to use them to pressure the shopkeepers of
Diagon Alley as well. When they see Hermione in Madame Malkin’s,
for instance, Narcissa says, “with a contemptuous glance at Hermione,
‘now I know the kind of scum that shops here . . . We’ll do better at
Twilfitt and Tatting’s”’ (Prince 114).
Persecuted minorities are often also denied the means to defend
themselves against that persecution. And what means could be more
important than the wand? After Voldemort takes over the Ministry,
Umbridge systematically seizes this most important tool from all
Muggle-borns, based on the twisted, biologically deterministic logic
that no Muggle-born can be a real witch or wizard, and therefore
could not have been chosen by a wand at Ollivanders. Therefore they
must have obtained the wand through nefarious means. Without a
compatible wand, one’s spellwork seriously suffers, as we know from
Voldemort’s and Harry’s experiences, and without a wand at all, there
is little magic most wizards can perform.
Once again, targeting sympathizers is an important way of under-
mining Muggle-born’s popular and material support—and once again
Arthur Weasley provides us with a many examples. Who can forget Mr.
Malfoy’s sneer when he sees the Weasleys and Grangers together: “Dear
me, what’s the use of being a disgrace to the name of wizard if they don’t
even pay you well for it . . . The company you keep, Weasley . . . and I
thought your family could sink no lower“ (Chamber 62). And Draco
dutifully repeats the family line: “Saint Potter, the ‘Mudbloods’ friend . .
. He’s another one with no proper wizard feeling” (Chamber 223).
Attitudes and Discrimination toward Purebloods Who Do Not
Conform. “My whole family are blood traitors! That’s as bad as
Muggle-borns to Death Eaters!,” Ron exclaims(Prince 242), and in
fact by the height of Voldemort’s power this seems to be the case. For
those who care about Blood Status, seeing that others don’t is offen-
sive in the highest. (We may ask ourselves: Why do they care so much?
If they are secure that their beliefs are correct, why are they so threat-
ened by the beliefs of others?)
While these more tolerant purebloods face little official sanction,
they do suffer some of the same kinds of informal abuse that Muggle-
borns do.. Identification and name-calling are rampant and low cost,
and again Mrs. Black takes the cake, closely followed by Kreacher,
who seems less upset about Sirius’s abusive attitude than that he is a
“filthy friend of Mudbloods” (Prince 420).
Speciesism
Chapter 2 addresses in some detail the way that wizarding law, in
word and practice, deals with different species. Here we examine the
ideology and social mores of the wizarding world toward nonhuman
magical creatures.
While this book generally sticks to the 7-part Potter “canon,” it
is worthwhile here to draw on the expertise of Newt Scamander.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them provides a very enlightening
history of the contested (and clearly socially constructed) nature of the
categorization of living beings in the magical world.
Scamander tells us that there are three commonly agreed forms of
sentient entities in the magical world: Beast, Being, and Spirit. It is
politically significant to be categorized as a being because philosoph-
ically and legally, a being is “a creature worthy of legal rights and a
voice in the governance of the magical world” (Scamander, x).
“Early attempts at deciding which magical creatures should be des-
ignated beasts were extremely crude.” The first criterion that was
used was whether an individual had four legs or two, but this had the
problem of excluding the highly intelligent centaurs, while including
not only trolls and giants but also creatures that most closely resemble
birds. Scamander tells us that the next criterion that was adopted
was the ability to speak the human tongue, but that this, too, led to
problems when it became clear that some creatures could be coached
to mimic human speech, while not clearly understanding its signifi-
cance as language. (In addition, Merpeople were excluded since, when
they are out of water, they can only speak Mermish.) (Scamander vx
and xi).
And so the chaos and contestation continued. Scamander tells us:
Not until 1811 were definitions found that most of the magical
community found acceptable. . . . [A being is] any creature that has
sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical commu-
nity and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws . . .
naturally the matter has not rested there. We are all familiar withth
extremists who campaign for the classification of Muggles as beasts.
(Scamander Xii)
So these categories are not natural, but, as so many categories are

in our world, politically and socially constructed. The fluid nature
of these labels is also illustrated by the fact that centaurs have reap-
propriated the “beast” designation, in a manner similar to the reap-
propriation of “queer” by some members of the LGBT community, or
of racial epithets by ethnic minorities. Indeed, so contingent are the

“beast” and “being” labels that some individuals qualify at some times
as beasts, at other times as beings. For instance, there exists an office
for Werewolf Support Services that is charged with the special needs
and concerns of werewolves in their untransformed state, when they
are considered beings. But, to address the problem of transformed
werewolves that have gone rogue, there also exists a Capture unit that
is part of the Beast Division.
Assuming that we can predict the values and behavior of an entire
class, then, can lead to both private and state-sponsored actions based
on predicted rather than actual behavior.
Attitudes toward Other Magical Creatures. Here, too, we have the
egalitarians—including those like Hermione who clearly want to
see all magical creatures as equal, even if it means she has to impose
equality on those who don’t want it, as we discuss in Chapter 3. But
at least she is egalitarian: she believes that all part-humans should be
treated the same as humans. “Honestly, all this hysteria about giants.
They can’t all be horrible . . . It’s the same sort of prejudice that people
have toward werewolves . . . It’s just bigotry, isn’t it?” (Goblet 433–34).
Similarly, when Fudge asks Dumbledore if he knows “what [half-giant
Madame Maxime] is,” Dumbledore replies: “I consider her to be a
very able headmistress—and an excellent dancer.”
Then there are those who see at least some magical creatures as
separate, but certainly equal in their abilities. There’s evidence, for
instance, that goblins have different abilities than wizards but would
likely be equally matched in a fair fight. Even Hermione, who is quick
to discern and critique wizard unfairness toward other magical crea-
tures, thinks goblins are quite able to defend themselves:
“Worrying about poor ‘ickle goblins, now, are you?” Ron asked
Hermione. “Thinking of starting up S.P.U.G. or something? Society
for the Protection of Ugly Goblins?”
“Ha, ha, ha,” said Hermione sarcastically. “Goblins don’t need pro-
tection. Haven’t you been listening to what Professor Binns has been
telling us about goblin rebellions?”
“No,” said Harry and Ron together.
“Well, they’re quite capable of dealing with wizards,” said Hermione,
taking another sip of butterbeer. “They’re very clever. They’re not like
house-elves who never stick up for themselves.” (Goblet 449)
Third, and most dangerously, there are a large minority of wizards who
see other magical creatures—of any kind---as inferior and subhuman.
At best, they can have (according to Law Fifteen B) “near-human

intelligence” (Phoenix 755).
Muggles who have followed Harry through even his first year can-
not help but find this absurd, if only because it fails to distinguish
between such a wide diversity of creatures—those that our experi-
ences tell are every bit as intellectually capable as wizards (werewolves,
goblins, centaurs), as emotionally capacious as wizards (house-elves,
werewolves again), and those that clearly tend to be neither (trolls,
giants, etc.). And these creatures are as different from each other as
they are from humans. So why not regard them as such?
In most cases, it is fear that drives the most vicious oppression of
other magical creatures. (Though, in the case of gnomes, sometimes it
is sheer annoyance.) For instance, Dumbledore tells Harry how “mis-
trusted” werewolves are “by most of our kind [so] that his support will
count for very little,” and implies that actually friendship with Lupin
may hurt rather than help Sirius’s credibility (Prisoner 392). That is
why when Severus “accidentally” reveals that Lupin is a werewolf, it is
as good as handing Lupin a pink slip: “This time tomorrow, the owls
will start arriving from parents . . . They will not want a werewolf
teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see their point.
I could have bitten any of you . . . That must never happen again”
(Prisoner 423).
The most dangerous feature of this sort of attitude, however, is
the assumption that behavioral traits are ingrained in the “nature” of
certain kinds of creatures. This is problematic because it leads to the
assumption that because those traits are genetically linked, they are
inherently present in all member of the group. Broad generalizations
then are substituted for individual analysis—and unnecessarily repres-
sive action is legitimized. This is a faulty assumption, of course, for
we know now from genetic science that traits can be present but not
expressed, or mutations can cause them to not be present at all.
To return to Muggle history for a moment, consider how various
parts of the Nuremberg laws were based on assuming that certain
traits were in the “nature” of Jews and thus applied to all members
of the group across the board. Nazi racial theorists argued that Jews
were, genetically and therefore immutably, greedy, dirty, and dis-
honest. Therefore, first boycotting and then exclusion from govern-
ment contracts and certain kinds of professions were legitimized.
We see these kinds of deterministic assumptions being made, for
instance, when Fudge suspects Madame Maxime of tampering with
the selection process for the Triwizard Tournament because of “what
that woman is” (half giant) (Goblet 580), and Umbridge is clearly
convinced that Hagrid’s giant blood makes him an imbecile before

she ever meets him (Phoenix 450) (as she is that Lupin is a “dangerous
half breed” and that Firenze is thoroughly unsuitable as well [Phoenix
600]).
We can tell that this kind of assumption is widespread among the
wizarding community from not only Lupin’s confident prediction
that parents would not want a werewolf teaching their children, but
also the ease with which Lucius Malfoy convinces the Ministry that
Draco’s injury by Buckbeak is Hagrid’s fault.
Even Ron, raised in a very tolerant wizard household that is fas-
cinated with Muggles, makes it clear that he “takes for granted” the
significance of Hagrid’s ancestry. Harry “could tell that most wizards
would not have said ‘So what?’ upon finding out that one of their
friends had a giantess for a mother” (Goblet 429). Ron goes on to
more explicitly say “It’s in their natures, they’re like trolls . . . they just
like killing, everyone knows that” (Goblet 430), and even Hagrid sup-
ports this conclusion when he returns from his attempt at diplomacy
(Phoenix 430).
Hagrid and Madame Maxime’s interactions demonstrate another
phenomenon that all too common in the Muggle world: purported
inferiority can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those that can pass as
“normal” or a member of the dominant group become afraid to iden-
tify themselves, and therefore the negative stereotypes remain. If the
dominant group never sees the “passing” minority members for what
they are, they remain unaware of the full diversity within the minority
group. As Hagrid says, “There’s some who’d even pretend they just had
big bones rather than stand up an’ say—I am what I am, an’ I’m not
ashamed” (Goblet 455–56). Madame Maxime has a choice: given all
that she has achieved professionally, she could do a great deal to dispel
stereotypes of giants as dull or violent by saying “I’m half-giant, and
look what I have done.” (Or je suis demi-gigante; voyez-moi et mes faits!)
By not doing so, she may preserve her reputation in the present. But
she now must live with a lie, and she is refusing to do the one thing she
could that would further opportunities for her kind in the future.
Bill, too, cautions that Harry, Ron, and Hermione should be care-
ful in their dealings with Griphook, based solely on the fact that he
is a goblin. “We are talking about a different breed of being . . .
Dealings between wizards and goblins have been fraught for centuries
. . . there is a belief among some goblins, and those at Gringotts are
perhaps most prone to it, that wizards cannot be trusted in matters
of gold and treasure, that they have no respect for goblin ownership”
(Hallows 517).
Forms of Discrimination against Other Species. Discrimination

against other sorts of magical creatures, like that against those of dif-
ferent Blood Status, can take the form of everything from the private
and superficial, to the official and extreme.
We know that certain kinds of creatures, for example, have been
officially excluded from magical education. This decision seems, at
Hogwarts, to be at the discretion of the headmaster. Werewolves were
not allowed at Hogwarts before Dumbledore became headmaster,
but Dumbledore was willing not only to accept Lupin but to go to
great lengths to accommodate him, such as planting the Whomping
Willow, creating the Shrieking Shack, and designing a safe route in
and out of Hogwarts for his transformations (Prisoner 353).
Again, private bias almost inexorably is institutionalized into more
official forms. We know that Umbridge drafted legislation that has
made it nearly impossible for Lupin to find work, and employers
obviously have enough discretion to be able to effectively exclude
werewolves from their employ—Lupin tells us as much when he
expresses his appreciation for Dumbledore’s trust: “He gave me a
job when I have been shunned all my adult life, unable to find paid
work because of what I am” (Prisoner 356), and certainly we might
have guessed this from his “extremely shabby . . . robes that had been
darned in several places,” the fact that “he looked ill and exhausted,”
and that “though quite young, his light brown hair was flecked with
gray” (Prisoner 74). In contrast, if it were located in the Muggle
world, Hogwarts would have a legal duty to accommodate Lupin’s
disability unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” on the
school or its inhabitants. Morris and Carroll evaluate the situation
as follows: “While the arrangements Dumbledore made for Lupin
required some effort on the headmaster’s part, they were not unduly
burdensome. By reserving the Shrieking Shack for Lupin’s monthly
transformation, Dumbledore accommodated Lupin’s disability and
protected Hogwarts’ students from encountering a dangerous were-
wolf in their midst.” Lupin’s case demonstrates once more that
educational and employment discrimination have far-reaching reper-
cussions for their victims’ future success. Lupin, for instance, faces
disrespect from students such as Malfoy who can’t take seriously his
tatty appearance (Prisoner 88).
Furthermore, all nonhumans are denied key tools of power like
wands. Remember that when Winky is framed for casting the Dark
Mark at the Quidditch World Cup, Mr. Diggory cites “clause three
of the Code of Wand Use broken, for a start. No non-human crea-
ture is permitted to carry or use a wand” (Goblet 132). Remember
that this includes even magical creatures who clearly consider them-
selves the equals of—or superior to—humans. “The right to carry a
wand,” Griphook tells us, “has long been contested between wizards
and goblins.” When Ron objects that “goblins can do magic without
wands,” Griphook replies,“That is immaterial! Wizards refuse to share
the secrets of wandlore with other magical beings, they deny us the
possibility of extending our powers!” It is clear, then, that wizards
have based this denial at least in part on threat.
Final Considerations
We have heretofore considered the status of various kinds of creatures
from the perspective of wizards. But Rowling complicates our consid-
eration in an interesting way by reminding us that there are other per-
spectives that count. While house-elves seem only too happy to bow
to wizard law; they are, in fact, quite unusual in this respect.
Centaurs, for example, clearly consider themselves superior to wiz-
ards and explicitly state, “We do not recognize your laws, we do not
acknowledge your superiority” (Phoenix 757). Centaurs seem especially
sensitive about their resemblance to horses. Bane asks if Hermione
thought them “pretty talking horses” (Phoenix 757), and reprimands
Firenze for carrying Harry: “You have a human on your back! Have
you no shame? Are you a common mule . . . It is not our business to
run around like donkeys after stray humans in our forest!” (Stone 257).
We know that later Firenze’s loyalty to Dumbledore and employment
at the school will lead to banishment and nearly to death. Firenze
himself tells the students in their first Divination lesson that “centaurs
are not the servants or playthings of humans” (Phoenix 602).
Centaurs also clearly do not share wizarding notions of ownership,
as they make all too clear when they ask Umbridge what she is doing
in their forest (Phoenix 755). It matters to them not a jot that she
claims they’re there “only because the Ministry of Magic permits you
certain areas of land.” Many readers will have been reminded of the
US government’s stance toward Native Americans, which it flew in
the face of indigenous doctrines that the land could be stewarded by
its human inhabitants, but not owned.
Is it realistic to think centaurs are the only race for whom this is
true? Certainly, goblin notions of ownership suggest not. We learn in
Hallows that goblins consider any of their workmanship only to be
leased by wizards, and that all goblin-made goods rightfully belong
to goblins. It is for this very reason that Bill cautions Harry, Ron, and
Hermione that they should assume Griphook will act accordingly—it
is not that he is evil, or that any goblin is, but that they distrust wiz-
ards because of a long history of animosity between the two races—a
socially constructed enmity rather than a natural one.
Still other kinds of creatures see themselves as more directly and
violently oppressed at the hands of “normal” wizards, and advocate
retribution. Lest we assume Lupin is a typical werewolf, he tells us
that he “cannot pretend that my particular brand of reasoned argu-
ment is making much headway against Greyback’s insistence that we
werewolves deserve blood, that we ought to revenge ourselves on
normal people” (Prince 335).
Concluding Thoughts
Rowling puts one final twist on wizard disdain for Muggles. We
first enter the wizarding world through the eyes and attitudes of the
Dursleys. The very first thing she chooses to tell us about them is that
“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to
say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much” (Stone 1).
“…As far as they were concerned, having a wizard in the family was a
matter of deepest shame” (Chamber 3–4). In fact, “magic” is as dirty
a word as the Dursleys can imagine, and they even refer to it only as
“the ‘M’ word’ (Chamber 2). (And when Uncle Vernon learns that
there is a Ministry of Magic he bellows, “People like you in govern-
ment? Oh this explains everything, everything, no wonder the coun-
try’s going to the dogs” [Phoenix 29].)
Though the Dursleys are particularly prejudiced Muggles, we have
several clues that antiwizard prejudice was widespread in other times
and places as well. Aberforth says that Ariana was hidden not because
she was a Squib, but because the Muggle world (somehow) forced
wizards to stay in hiding (Hallows 566). We are given to understand
that Voldemort didn’t create anti-Muggle or anti-Muggle born senti-
ment out of whole cloth. Rowling makes clear there were many wiz-
ards who had suffered injustices at the hands of Muggles, including
Ariana—leading, we are told, to Dumbledore’s father’s attack on the
Muggles who molested her.
Just as some wizards consider nonmagical folk to be subhuman,
many Muggles believe it is the wizards who are abnormal and unfit
to rule. If the two sides hold such extreme and diametrically opposed
views, how factually based can they be? How rational can any two
sides be that refuse to see commonality where it exists?
As Muggles, we, too, share our world with a great richness of diverse
creatures, most of whom have powers that rival our own, and a great
many of whom far surpass us. We are not the biggest, fastest, or most
agile creatures in the Muggle world, not by a long shot. Possibly we
are not even the most intelligent. At least Harry has the good fortune
to be able to communicate with many of the wondrous creatures with
whom he shares his world. As Muggles, our inability to communicate
with nonhuman creatures means that we rarely consider their perspec-
tive, or what they think of humans, their ways, and their laws.
Chapter 5
Th e DA ( D u m bl e dor e’s A r m y):

R e sista nc e f rom Be l ow
“Going to try and lead the house-elves out on strike now, are you?” said
George. “Going to give up all the leaflet stuff and try and stir them
up into rebellion?”
—Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (367)
The chips seem so stacked against marginalized groups in Harry’s

world and others that resistance might seem futile. Politics there
doesn’t start from a premise that “all men are created equal.” We
could (and Hermione does) argue that all magical creatures have
equal rights to basic physical, political, and civil goods, but clearly
some magical creatures have particular characteristics that give them
inherent advantages (or disadvantages) when seeking political power.
Nel notes that throughout the series, even leaving aside the Ministry’s
corruption, “Rowling seems more comfortable when power courses
through unofficial networks, as if its activist spirit is more democratic
than power entrenched in offical channels. No stranger to political
activism herself, Rowling implies that activists are more worthy of our
trust than public officials are” (40).
Many magical creatures have often either been exploited by wiz-
ards or perceived themselves as being so, and in cases like this, they
have had to turn to rebellion, or other forms of what political sci-
entists more delicately call “unconventional political participation.”
Reaching back in history, we know of at least one goblin rebellion,
in 1612 (Goblet 77)—though having gotten to know Griphook we
can probably imagine more!—and Hermione’s far less successful cam-
paign for the house-elves.
Collective Action and Social Movement

Theory Background
One of the most important things political scientists try to explain
is collective action. At first blush, there may seem little to explain: if
people have a similar goal, we’d expect them to work toward it together.
The problem is that many goals constitute public goods, that is, they
are goals that are public—that will benefit every individual, regardless
of whether that individual participated in the effort to secure the goal.
The collective action problem, which we encountered in Chapter 2,
occurs most often when a public good requires effort to secure. If that
effort is sufficiently high, individuals have little incentive to contribute
to it. They know that if others work to secure the public good, they
will benefit, no matter that they did not contribute.
An example from our world, and one from Harry’s, may be
illustrative.
Many environmental challenges constitute collective action prob-
lems. One of the classic illustrations of a public good is the “com-
mon,” or communal grazing land found in modern and early modern
European villages (Ostrom 1990). Commons were frequently over-
grazed, because there was little incentive to restrain oneself from
using a resource that everyone else was also using. All users would do
better if the commons was grazed in a sustainable way, but no one had
an incentive to restrain themselves unilaterally. Most assumed oth-
ers would care for the commons. Since everyone assumed this, few
actually acted in a sustainable manner. Recycling can pose a similar
problem. We all realize that if we all recycle, we ultimately create a
more sustainable environment in terms of our use of nonrenewable
resources and our pollution of the land, water sources, and air. That
cleaner and more sustainable environment is not something that we
can currently exclude people from if they do not recycle or follow other
environmentally responsible practices, though—we cannot, currently,
exclude nonrecyclers from continuing to purchase more of the nonre-
newable resources that they toss away, or force nonrecyclers to live in
piles of the excess waste they create. An appealing fantasy, indeed!
For those of us who live in areas where recycling is as easy as putting
things in a separate bin next to our usual dustbin, there is little cost,
and so we’re likely to recycle even if we don’t feel particularly strongly
about excess waste and sustainability. But what about those of us who
have to drive a lengthy distance to a recycling center, or separate all
our types of recyclables, or pay an extra fee for the service? If any
of those conditions apply, we have to be a little more committed to
T h e D A ( D u m b l e d o r e ’s A r m y ) 87
environmental conservation to participate in recycling. And it’s likely

that some people will choose not to participate in it. Any good we
receive from recycling will be indirect—we will not reap a cleaner
environment in direct proportion to the amount that we individually
recycled, but rather based on the sum of the efforts of everyone in our
area, as well as our local government, and to a lesser extent, efforts and
entities on a national and international scale as well. (This is why it’s
so important that local governments make recycling as simple as pos-
sible. We want to save the planet, but we want it to be easy.)
In short, when the good in question is a public good, there is a high
probability that not everyone who values the good will contribute to
acquiring it.
Are there examples where this plays out in Harry’s world? Perhaps
most obviously, everyone will benefit from stopping Voldemort, but
people know that the disincentive is of the most dire kind—death,
and perhaps a long and painful one, if they try and fail. When the dis-
incentive is high enough, even though people know the good will not
be provided absent their participation, they are also reluctant to par-
ticipate. Collective action for a public good becomes all the more dif-
ficult when that good is something contrary to the interests of those
in authority. This logic has been used by many political scientists and
anthropologists to explain the infrequency of revolutions.
To raise the costs of resistance, governments put in place strate-
gies such as controlling information, controlling new technologies
and manipulating political benefits, and attempting to sever alliances
between challengers to the regime (divide and conquer strategies).
Each of these strategies (and others) have been used even by demo-
cratic societies when threatened with “subversion” or countergovern-
mental activity, whether by protest movements of the 1960s or the
Occupy movements of today.
Again, the logic of society appears to not be so different in the
Muggle and wizarding worlds. Certainly the Daily Prophet, for
instance, doesn’t seem the least bit ashamed to practically let the
Ministry of Magic write its copy. Harry discovers this with a nasty
start after the summer of silence he endures following the Triwizard
Tournament. The Prophet is happy to call him not “The Boy Who
Lived” but “The Boy Who Lied,” and to question Dumbledore’s
soundness of mind on a weekly basis. The intention, of course, is to
prime people to disbelieve anything said by Harry (and Dumbledore),
and to accept whatever information they are fed by the Ministry. The
Ministry’s own publications go even further, as Dolores Umbridge’s
horrifying pamphlet on “Mudbloods and the Dangers They Pose to
Wizardkind”—a screed that would be laughable if it weren’t so terri-

fying—dramatically illustrates.
The Ministry also attempts to monopolize both political benefits
and new technologies. We know that “Dumbledore’s name is mud
at the ministry right now,” and “Fudge has made clear that anyone
who’s in league with Dumbledore can clear out their desks” (Phoenix
71). Percy moves out of the Burrow because he parts ways with Molly
and Arthur over this issue. Muggle governments also seem to have
first access to new technologies. One of the most interesting debates
to emerge from state responses to Occupy is over the legitimacy of
government remote surveillance of crowds and cell phone communi-
cation. In a hauntingly similar way, Voldemort and his followers, once
they have taken the ministry, are able to track people anywhere simply
by monitoring the use of his name. No one else appears to have this
capacity.
But time and time again, we are warned that Voldemort’s most
powerful weapon is his ability to break down bonds and connections,
and thus defeat groups, one at a time, that would be invincible if they
stood together. Dumbledore warns that “Lord Voldemort’s gift for
spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by
showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust. Differences
of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and
our hearts are open” (Goblet 723). This is a dramatic understatement,
but one that seems too easily forgotten as distrust and greed spread in
the wake of Voldemort’s resurgence. His appreciation of Voldemort’s
power to divide and conquer drives Dumbledore to encourage Fudge
to reach out to traditionally excluded minorities and build ties.
Characteristically, however, Fudge refuses because of his own biases,
and fear of what it will do to his popularity and power if people know
Voldemort is back. Dumbledore is left to try to do this on his own—to
send Hagrid to parlay with the giants, for instance, but by then it is
too late. Voldemort has already gotten there and seized the initiative,
biasing the giants against Hagrid’s appeals.
This serves, too, as an interesting contrast to the temptation to
overreact to acts of terror. Less scrupulous leaders have used the rhe-
toric of the War on Terror to expand the scope of their control over
the population in ways that are not only unnecessary, but violate fun-
damental rights—such as warrantless wiretapping under constitution-
ally questionable parts of the USA-PATRIOT Act.
A final way in which authorities attempt to gird themselves against
resistance movements is simultaneously more subtle, and possibly
more pervasive, than any of those we have discussed thus far. There is
a lively debate among social movement theorists about the extent to

which “elites are able to impose their own image of a just social order,
not simply on the behavior of non-elites, but on their consciousness
as well” (Scott 39). Another way to ask this question is: can those in
positions of power create outer parameters that confine and control
potential protest? To understand this somewhat abstract notion, let’s
look at two examples from Harry’s world: a mesolevel limit (in which
authority attempts to directly and explicitly limit protest), and a mac-
rolevel limit (in which authority attempts to change the rules of the
game under which strategies of protest are devised).
Fudge’s attempt to limit the training of young witches and wizards
in combat is a direct and explicit attempt to limit protest. Because it is
both explicit and concrete, there is an obvious solution: find another
way to learn the skills Fudge has prohibited learning. The DA is a di-
rect response to a direct limit.
But the Statute for the Reasonable Restriction of Underaged Sorcery
constitutes a more general limit that circumscribes the very rules under
which protest strategies can be formed. The statute is very general,
stating that underage witches and wizards are forbidden from using
magic out of school. But we later learn that there are exceptions—for
instance, at home, it is left up to parents to enforce the restriction. We
also know there are exceptions for self-defense. Too, the punishment
for violations is quite inconsistent. Harry has something comparable
to a full criminal trial after casting a Patronus charm between his
fourth and fifth years—a disciplinary measure that Dumbledore ex-
plicitly states constitutes a change. Even without these inconsistencies
and exceptions, the nature of the law leaves much room for interpreta-
tion. For instance, no magic performed by students at Hogwarts or in
Hogsmeade appears forbidden under the statute, no matter its nature
or its unrelatedness to classes or other official activities. Even the title
raises questions. What is “reasonable” versus “unreasonable” restric-
tion, and is the determination of which is which not likely to be rather
malleable over time and circumstance?
The law constitutes the basis of a more macrolevel constraint on the
limits of dissent because it places the right to determine reasonableness
in the hands of adults and, more importantly, the Ministry. Of course,
such constraints could also be far more subtle as well, such as manip-
ulating the way that different classes of people understand their role
and their stake in the current system—the kind of thing that much of
the propaganda under Voldemort’s rule is intended to achieve.
Everyday Forms of Resistance

Both meso- and macrolevel constraints by authorities, coupled with
the other strategies discussed earlier, often make it wisest for protest
movements to pursue what political scientist James Scott has called
everyday forms of resistance. In a work that has become one of the
classic studies of dissent and protest, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday
Forms of Peasant Resistance, Scott distinguishes between full-blown
rebellions or revolutions and the more covert and individually based
strategies that may be employed in situations when there are strong
disincentives for open rebellion. While our young witches and wiz-
ards may hardly seem analogous to the Malayan peasants of Scott’s
research, a closer look reveals that their sense of powerlessness in an
increasingly threatening world is very much akin to that of many sub-
ordinate classes in Muggle polities.
According to Scott, these “everyday forms of resistance . . . require
little or no coordination or planning; they often represent a form of
individual self-help; and they typically avoid any direct symbolic con-
frontation with authority or with elite norms” (Scott 29).
Everyday resistance is informal, often covert, and concerned largely

with immediate, de facto gains . . . [Success] is often directly pro-
portional to the symbolic conformity with which it is masked. Open
insubordination in almost any context will provoke a more rapid and
ferocious response than an insubordination that may be as pervasive
but never ventures to contest the formal definitions of hierarchy and
power. For most subordinate classes . . . this form of resistance has
been the only option. What may be accomplished within this symbolic
straitjacket is nonetheless something of a testament to human persis-
tence and inventiveness. (Scott 33)
Everyday forms of resistance most importantly include passive non-

compliance, foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering,
slander, arson, and sabotage, as well as what Scott calls a “moral com-
ponent,” which we will explore further in a bit.
The DA provides a good case study through which we can examine
some of these everyday forms of resistance. It is important to note,
however, that the collective action problem the DA addresses is not
one of directly providing a public good. Learning to defend them-
selves can eventually lead to provision of a public good—the defeat of
Voldemort. But learning defensive skills from Harry provides a par-
ticularistic good (in the language of social movement theorists) that
can only be enjoyed by the members. This is a classic strategy used by
interest groups to increase their membership and overcome the col-

lective action problem that so often arises when the only goods being
provided are public ones. But more than a valuable skill set, the DA
also provides a setting in which its members can carry out many of
Scott’s “everyday forms of resistance.”
First and foremost, it is explicitly covert. Hermione isn’t kidding
anyone, least of all herself, when she argues that they aren’t technically
breaking any school rules when they first formulate the idea of train-
ing themselves under Harry’s tutelage. This becomes quite clear when
she suggests toward the end of the first meeting in the Hog’s Head:
“I-I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know
who was here. But I also think . . . that we all ought to agree not to
shout about what we’re doing. So if you sign, you’re agreeing not to
tell Umbridge—or anybody else—what we’re up to” (Phoenix 346).
Similarly, Hagrid’s journey to parlay with the giants must be under-
taken in utter secrecy as well.
In fact, it is to some extent the very fact of “getting away” with
covert acts that makes everyday forms of resistance so appealing for
many resistors. In a position of powerlessness, it is a way to reassert
power over some small piece of life, without the knowledge of those in
authority. Many Muggles in positions of resistance to authority could
well identify with Harry’s sense that the very fact of being able to prac-
tice “right under [the ministry’s] very nose” (Phoenix 371) could lift
their spirits immeasurably.
Second, passive noncompliance is one of the best-honed weap-
ons in almost any student’s arsenal, and the students (and faculty)
of Hogwarts are no exception. Passive noncompliance allows dis-
obedience that may either go unnoticed or of which the perpe-
trator may (somewhat) credibly claim ignorance. Notably, the most
cheeky instance of passive noncompliance is Snape’s refusal to pro-
vide Umbridge with Veritaserum when she so desperately seeks it to
interrogate the members of the DA. Other faculty members, as well,
seem to embrace passive noncompliance, as they grow increasingly
“helpless” to assist Umbridge in managing the chaos that we are led
to suspect they are helping to cause.
The third tool in Scott’s list, foot dragging, also comes naturally
to many of us when we are students. Hermione may be considered
an oddity, in fact, for her obsession with timeliness, which is why we
know immediately that she is willfully foot dragging when she stam-
mers out her explanation to Umbridge about the “secret weapon” on
which she claims the DA have been working, before leading her on a
dangerous wild goose chase into the Forest. We know Dumbledore
himself is not above using foot dragging when it may serve the greater
good, so to speak. In Harry’s third year, it certainly seemed he had a
lot to say to Fudge and McNair before Buckbeak’s scheduled execu-
tion—far more than would be his wont with those two. Quite fortu-
nate, really, that those extra few seconds allowed Harry and Hermione
to free the great hippogriff!
The next tool, dissimulation (or misrepresenting the truth) is actu-
ally something at which Harry rarely excels. Not only do people like
Snape, Dumbledore, and Hermione seem to see right through him,
but when he is counseled to keep quiet, he is generally unable to do
so. Does he need to get off to quite such a bad start with Umbridge
their first day in class together, shouting her down? We suspect not.
But as he matures, he seems to be better at learning the art of patience
in revealing the truth. So in his sixth year, after quite ungracefully
approaching Slughorn about Horcruxes, he learns to bide his time and
wait to seize an opportune moment, when he can use Slughorn’s weak-
nesses to get what he wants. In that same year, he is also quite deter-
mined to hide his ownership of the Half Blood Prince’s text, too, at
least for a while—though it could be argued that that dissimulation is
less about long-term political strategy and more about short-term aca-
demic gain.
The use of the old, annotated text actually represents an example of
Scott’s next tool, false compliance. In a political setting, an example
of false compliance would be appearing to follow a given law (say a
new speed limit) but only doing so in corridors one knows are moni-
tored. False compliance is the natural complement to passive noncom-
pliance. In Harry’s context, he is able to appear to be an avid student
of potions while essentially cribbing all the Prince’s notes. Similarly,
every time Harry and Ron copy an assignment off Hermione, they are
faking compliance with the independent reading and writing that is
assumed in the assessment of assignments.
A more self-evident form of everyday resistance is pilfering. While
Fred and George may be the masters of this when it comes to the
kitchens, Harry, Ron, and Hermione turn this tool toward larger stra-
tegic ends as well, pilfering ingredients from Snape’s office to make
Polyjuice Potion and other illicit brews in nearly every year.
Feigned ignorance is a tool that may be deployed in tandem with
any of the above goals or on its own. The number of things that Harry,
Ron, and Hermione have to feign ignorance about seems nearly infi-
nite. They feign ignorance about the DA, about Sirius’s true nature
and whereabouts, about the identity and loyalty of the members of
the Order, about spying on Draco, about Hagrid’s activities, about the
reason he was expelled—the list goes on and on, and any of us who
have spent Harry’s school years with him have our own favorite anec-
dotes we could add. But we know that Harry is not the only one who
knows the utility of feigning ignorance. Dumbledore, too, is a master
of deception, while nearly always avoiding the outright lie. Whether
his vision in the Mirror of Erised or his suspicions about the Harry-
Voldemort connection, Dumbledore knows when to keep mum.
Another, particularly toxic everyday form of resistance includes
slander. Nowhere near the professional that Rita Skeeter is, the stu-
dents’ slander about the Malfoys and their compatriots rarely extends
further than their own little group and a few familiars: Hagrid, Sirius,
the other Weasleys, and the like. It can, nonetheless, be a valuable way
to seize the right to still speak truth, even to a very small circle, in the
face of power.
The last two concrete tools in Scott’s list are arson and sabotage,
and they seem a particularly spectacular way to end the list—just as
spectacular as the way in which Fred and George end their Hogwarts
careers. As Castro observes: “Nothing hurts an established power
figure more than being made to look ridiculous” (Castro in Lackey
129). And as resentment against Umbridge rises, nearly all the fac-
ulty members become a little peevish, or, as Bealer puts it, “Fred and
George’s tactics create subversive space” for the faculty (Bealer in
Anatol 2009: 182).
This leads to a final, but altogether harder to define and measure
weapon in Scott’s arsenal. This is what he calls a “moral component.”.
“One of the most powerful weapons they had was [an] ethic of mutual
obligation” (Scott 38). It is, of course, this very weapon that, though
least tangible, turns out to be their most important tool—despite all
Voldemort’s efforts.
Chapter 6
De at h E at e r s a n d Da r k Wi z a r ds :
Te r ror a n d C ou n t e r t e r ror
“I don’t get it,” said Ron, frowning. “I mean it’s still only a shape in
the sky.”
“Ron, You-Know-Who and his followers sent the Dark Mark into the
air whenever they killed,” said Mr. Weasley. “The terror it inspired
. . . you have no idea, you’re too young. Just picture coming home
and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house, and knowing
what you’re about to find inside . . . . everyone’s worst fear . . . the
very worst.”
—Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (142)
“The Dark Arts,” said Snape, “Are many, varied, ever-changing,

and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed mon-
ster, which each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer
and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed,
mutating, indestructible.”
“Did you hear him talking about the Dark Arts? [fumed Harry]
He loves them!”..
“Well,” said Hermione, “I thought he sounded a bit like you.”
—Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (172, 180)
Could there be a more archetypal terrorist 1

organization than the
Death Eaters? Their masks, their love of theatrics, their choice of targets
and tactics with powerful emotional impact, and their ability to hide in
plain sight—in many ways they are the quintessential “terrorist group”
as it has been constructed in the popular collective consciousness, and
they similarly bedevil the “legitimate” power of the Ministry to stop
them. We easily come to see them, as we do terrorist organizations, as

“evil doers” (as George W. Bush likes to say) that must be destroyed,
or destroy us. (Rivers [2007] offers a useful summary discussion of the
way the works reflect an increasingly dangerous world.)
And yet the Death Eaters’s nature and role similarly reveals sev-
eral serious problems that plague responses to terror in both Harry’s
world and ours. These problems include the shifting and contextually
bounded definition of terror and hence of terrorists; so we will first
consider what the Death Eaters can tell us about the “knowability” of
terrorism, and about the sources of its powerful hold on the popular
imagination. What is it that distinguishes terror from, say, war or crime?
Is a definition of terror possible apart from its social and political con-
text? We will then consider responses to terror, particularly to “insur-
gent” terror tactics. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Magic makes most
of the classic mistakes made by governments throughout history.
What Is Terrorism?
The powerful emotional content of terrorist events—whether Ginny
Weasley’s abduction into the Chamber of Secrets or Cedric’s at the
climax of the Triwizard Tournament—make it all the more important
to clarify its definition. One of the most frightening things about terror
is its apparent potential ubiquity—the kind of ubiquity that requires
grandmothers to hobble barefoot through airport metal detectors,
and the average Londoner to be photographed several times per day
by surveillance cameras. Given this, any intelligent discussion of terror
must start with what it is—and, just as importantly, what it isn’t.
The criteria for branding behavior as terrorist are socially con-
structed. That is to say, different definitions prevail in different
times and places, and what is terror in one historical moment is often
“crime”’ or “war” in another. The Death Eaters are never referred to
as “terrorists” per se, and Fudge and the prime minister argue about
whether the battle against Voldemort is a “war” (Prince 12). But
attempts to distinguish terrorist acts commonly focus on two char-
acteristics—the ends of the actors performing the act, and the means
they employ, and on both measures the Death Eaters resemble many
better-known terrorist organizations of our world. For instance, in
March 2005, a UN panel described an act of terror as one “intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants
with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a gov-
ernment or an international organization to do or abstain from doing
any act” (United Nations 2005). Title 22 of US Code, a compromise
De at h E at er s a n d Da r k Wi z a r ds 97
between the official Department of State and Department of Defense

definitions, calls terrorism “premeditated, politically motivated vio-
lence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups
or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (22
US Code 2656f[d]). Each of these definitions includes elements of
purpose or ends, and elements of strategy or means. The latter set of
criteria are, as we will see, vastly superior to the former.
Ends. Attacking undefended nonmilitary targets, using disguise
and deception to gain access to them, and targeting noncombatants
are the kinds of acts that have earned the IR A, Hamas, Al Qaeda,
Sendero, and countless other organizations a shudder of fear from civil-
ians around the world. Yet they are the same tactics that, for instance,
Americans celebrate as brave and innovative in the context of “patriot”
resistance to British rule before the American Revolutionary War. One
of the most famous unattributed quotes on terrorism is that one per-
son’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. In other words, terrorism
is defined not by its tactics, but by whether we agree with the political
or moral orientation of the actor in question. This is sensible enough.
Most of us have watched, for instance, Harry and Draco perform acts
of mutual cruelty and potential harm, but are likely to see Harry’s as
less egregious than Draco’s, even when the hexes are clearly commen-
surate. (Similarly, we know it is wrong for the impostor Moody to turn
Draco into a ferret, but it is a good deal funnier to most of us than if
he had done it to Harry.)
Some social scientists have proposed more objective criteria for
determining what kind of end legitimizes the use of unconventional
tactics. For instance, some prefer to distinguish between state terrorism
and acts of terror by nonstate or substate actors, which is sometimes
referred to as “insurgent” terrorism, as it generally aims to change the
behavior of nation-state leaders. It is nonstate or substate terror that
most of us mean when we use the term. But some of the worst acts
of terror have been inflicted by states against their own populations,
in part or in toto. And states have far greater coercive capacity than
individuals or most substate insurgent groups. The Holocaust and the
genocides in Cambodia, Turkey, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and
Darfur are only some of the more horrific examples of the destruc-
tive potential of the state. And the Ministry of Magic demonstrates
amply that it is not above terrorizing its subjects, including minors, in
Harry’s fifth year.
Terror, Organization and the Logic of Deterrence. It is tempting to
focus on nonstate actors, however, because these pose a special set of
challenges to war-fighting strategies developed based on traditional
state versus state conflict. (We might expect these doctrines to have
impacted Ministry of Magic strategy as well, since we know the
Ministry cooperates with the Muggle British government in times of
crisis.) Three organizational aspects of substate terror are particularly
challenging in this regard.
First, many wars between nation-states are deterred rather than
fought. Deterrence means preventing an act of war from happening
by threatening to retaliate against an adversary’s territory, civilian
population, infrastructure, or key military installations. Most substate
actors, like the Death Eaters or the Al-Qaeda, do not possess any of
these characteristics,2 and therefore they cannot be deterred.
Second, most terrorist organizations have a highly cellularized struc-
ture. At his trial, Igor Karkaroff explains that he cannot provide more
Death Eater names because “we never knew the names of every one
of our fellows—he alone knew exactly who we all were” (Goblet 588).
This is classic cellularization—rather than have one large, coherent
and integrated organization, where members are identifiable to each
other (like the military), cellular organizations are split into many
smaller subgroups or “cells,” who only know each other and then one
or two people in other subgroups. This allows for communication to
be passed from a command center, throughout the network of cells
while maintaining a crucial defensive advantage. As Moody puts it, it
is “a wise move as it prevented someone like you from turning them
all in” (Goblet 588). Cellularization makes hunting down all members
of an organization nigh to impossible.
Another reason Voldemort might devise a cellular structure for
the Death Eaters is that it would prevent members from coordinating
against him. Maintaining control and corporate cohesion is a common
concern of leaders of terrorist organizations. A great deal of emphasis
tends to be placed on loyalty, so much so that members are often asked
to renounce their outside affiliations and adopt the insurgent group
as their sole social network. Eventually members may have no real life
on the outside to which to return, thus further cementing their loyalty
to the terrorist organization. In this way, some terror organizations
come to resemble cults (and in fact some, like Aum Shinrikyo, are).
Voldemort, from his Hogwarts days, controls his followers tightly and
punishes perceived disloyalty, even after 13 years, in the severest ways
possible. In the previous chapter we saw how he craves loyalty even as
he acts in ways that tend to erode it.
Cellularization may exist alongside a third organizational charac-
teristic that makes substate terror groups difficult to combat: lack of a
clear hierarchical structure or chain of command. Though the Death
Eaters have a single leader at their hub, they lack a well-defined orga-
nizational structure beyond this. While large militaries fighting other
large militaries in pitched battles need to have a clear and relatively
rigid chain of command to allow them to coordinate the action of
thousands of soldiers, nonstate terror groups may not need such a
complex hierarchy and in fact may see its rigidity as a liability. In an
institution with a high degree of vertical organization, the destruc-
tion of the top levels of the hierarchy invariably leads to chaos in the
rest of the organization until a new command and control center can
be established. In a less hierarchical system, especially if it is also cel-
lularized, there is more resilience to such strikes, and less reliance on
commands from the top. Among other things, this leads to the fre-
quent characterization of terror organizations as “hydra-headed,”3 a
description that Snape echoes in the opening quote of this chapter.
Even if one takes out the “hub” of a cellularized and/or horizontally
organized terrorist group, the likely effect is not the destruction of
the organization but the rise of at least one new leader, if not more—
and as Snape says, they will be “cleverer” because they have learned
from the mistakes of the past. They may also be sworn to avenge the
newest losses, on top of their original complaints, which makes them
“fiercer” as well as “cleverer”—a potentially deadly alchemy.
Many terrorist organizations marry cellularization to other strate-
gies of stealth and secrecy to make their members essentially uniden-
tifiable. The only uniform they have—the mask and hood (adopted in
some form by not only the Death Eaters but also the KKK, Sendero,
and Al Qaeda, among others) by definition anonymizes them, sym-
bolically subjugating individual identity to corporate, but also making
them simultaneously nowhere and everywhere in the larger society.
Anonymity also begets uncertainty about the group’s popularity since
individuals cannot be counted. If an overestimation of the group’s
popularity causes the government to overreact, which is not always
as bad as it might seem for an insurgent group, since it often proves
their points and wins them sympathy. (The clever deployment of the
Guy Fawkes masks in the graphic novel and 2006 film V for Vendetta
illustrates this strategy brilliantly.) We will return to the desirability
of overreaction and some further implications of invisibility presently.
Means. Renowned sociologist Charles Tilly rejects any definition of
terrorism that relies on the ends of the actors (Tilly 2004). There are
two main reasons for this. First, as a social scientist, Tilly is concerned
that the definition relies on something that is often difficult to ascer-
tain. While many who engage in terror eventually signal their goals,
many do not. Often, the responsible group does not even claim credit,
as with many acts of civil unrest currently occurring in Iraq, or with

the petrifications that happen during Harry’s second year. (We know
how vague the Heir’s cryptic messages are, since Harry, Ron, and
Hermione can consider several widely disparate interpretations.)
Tilly also objects to defining acts of terror by their ends because
“terrorist” means (such as those referenced in the official definitions
above) have been used toward every imaginable sort of end. The ends
of terrorism must be at least tangentially political, but outside of that,
tactics of “terror” have been wielded in the pursuit of every possible
ideological and practical goal. These, of course, range from very spe-
cific symbolic protests (e.g., abortion clinic bombings) to attempts
to overthrow a government wholesale (e.g., the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict). In Harry’s world, even the darkest of Dark Arts are legit-
imized by the state as tools to fight evil. During Voldemort’s first
reign of terror, we learn, the Auror office was given the power to use
Unforgiveable curses and lethal force against Death Eaters4 (Goblet
527). Therefore, Tilly argues, there are no meaningful generalizations
that can be made about the ends of terror.
In short, while we can conceive of actions with a wide range of ends
using violent enough means that we would deem them “terror,” it is
hard to imagine a peaceful expression of even the most egregious hor-
ror being recognized as “terrorism” by the average observer. Thus, we
must turn to means to ground our definition.
In the most common current definitions of “terror,” there are five
characteristics that generally distinguish acts of terrorism from those
of crime on the one hand and war on the other: unconventionality,
asymmetricality, targeting of noncombatants, the symbolic content of
targeting, and performativity.
Audience and Performance. The choice of symbolic targets, the
use of unconventional means to create mass emotive impact, and
even the targeting of the innocent can only be fully understood as
elements of a performance. This is perhaps the most important char-
acteristic of the terror event, because no terror event can have an
impact if no one knows about it, and because the logic of theatri-
cality determines in turn the time, place, target, and method of the
terror act. The Death Eaters at the World Cup clearly know that the
Prophet (and probably the international wizarding papers as well) will
assure they get top billing the next day. And the Heir of Slytherin
in fact has two audiences for his crimes during Harry’s second year.
First there is his own, more proximate audience: the student body at
Hogwarts, especially Muggles and Muggle-borns, who he hopes to
drive from the school from fear. But there is a meta-audience for the
attacks as well: Lucius’s. By slipping the diary in Ginny’s cauldron in

the first place, Lucius hopes that she’ll encounter Tom’s “memory,”
do as it bids her, and eventually be discovered. Ultimately, he hopes,
the ensuing scandal will doom Arthur’s Muggle Protection Act.
His audience, then, is the Ministry itself and the wider wizarding
community5.
In all three cases, the intended audience and the message determine
both the form of the attacks and the tools used to them. Lucius, of
course, chooses a Weasley to discredit Arthur. And when Tom pos-
sesses Ginny, he wants to create a generalized atmosphere of fear,
but more particularly to drive the Muggle-borns from Hogwarts.
Therefore, he makes certain the messages Ginny leaves behind are
cryptic enough to maintain an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear
while making it clear who is most at risk. We see the audience attempt-
ing to make sense of these messages. Besides the various theories that
Harry, Hermione, and Ron consider, Draco guesses that “you’ll be
next, Mudbloods!”(Ch amber 139), while Neville, on the other hand,
is sure the Heir is after squibs because he targeted Filch “and everyone
knows I’m almost a squib!” (Chamber 185).
Terror acts are also staged to command the largest audience pos-
sible. The Quidditch World Cup was the perfect place for the Death
Eaters to demonstrate that they were still around, and that they still
hated Muggles, because it was, as we have noted, a highly publicized
international event. For the same reason, we Muggles have extremely
high security around sporting events and public spectacles of all
kinds—they are a ready-made global screen for the projection of a
terrorist message.
Staging and Symbolism. Because of limitations on an insurgent
group’s resources, and because the performance of an act of terror
may result in arrest and capture before further acts can be carried
out or demands made, most groups stage these terrorist “perfor-
mances” to have the highest symbolic content possible. These sym-
bols then further elucidate messages about the groups’ aims, and the
consequences of not meeting them. For instance, the 9/11 bombings
focused on the commercial and military heart of the “evil” American
empire. Similarly, the Death Eaters torment the Roberts family at
the camp not because they have anything against the Roberts per se
but simply because they are Muggles and as far as the Death Eaters
are concerned, all Muggles are second-class citizens. They demon-
strate that the Muggles are entirely at their mercy by literally manip-
ulating them like marionettes, subjecting Mrs. Roberts to sexualized
humiliation, and tormenting the family members in each others’
presence—all classic tools of terror that fall outside the conventional

forms of struggle in any political regime (Goblet 120).
Similarly, Timothy McVeigh orchestrated the 1996 Oklahoma City
bombing with great thought to the symbolic referents of his target
and his timing. The Murrah Federal Office Building represented to
him the American federal government and its excesses, and April 19
is one of the most symbolically weighted dates on the calendar for
ultralibertarian and white supremacist groups in the United States,
being the anniversary of the Waco disaster, the Ruby Ridge standoff,
the Lexington and Concord battles, and Hitler’s birthday.
Unconventional. One distinguishing aspect of this form of struggle
is its unconventionality. While theoretically important, this is not a
particularly useful working definition because it depends entirely on
what is usual in a given historical and cultural moment. Levicorpus
is an entirely common trick to play on fellow students when James
and Sirius are in school, and while they likely got detentions it seems
improbable anyone would have been calling out the Magical Law
Enforcement Squad. However, suspending someone several feet in
the air in our world would certainly be cause for, at the very least, an
assault and battery charge (if, perhaps, well worth it). However hard
to pin down, though, unconventionality in a given sociohistorical
context is crucial to the emotive impact and performative meaning of
the act, as we will see next.
Asymmetrical. Tilly concludes that we should eschew terms like
“terrorism” altogether, because they have become too loaded and
imply generalizations—about ends or about the actors themselves—
that are not sustainable. Instead, he says, we should refer to the
“asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies,
outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within the
current regime” (Tilly 2004: 9). “Asymmetrical” deployment is any
that takes place between adversaries of widely different power mag-
nitudes; for instance a state and a single citizen or party. When we
think of terrorism today we think about the creative (even “unusual”)
use of power by small, apparently weak groups against much larger
and more formally powerful ones (the state). One of Al Qaeda’s most
crucial recruiting tools has been its success in inflicting pain on the
United States. There is a less pronounced asymmetricality between
the Death Eaters and the Ministry. The Death Eaters lack the formal
power of the Ministry of Magic, but they also are not the under-
dogs that many insurgent terror groups are, thanks to the Ministry’s
reliable bungling, the personal power and influence of many of the
Death Eaters, and the equalizing effects of magical weapons.
Targeting Noncombatants or the “Innocent.” Both state terror and

insurgent terror depart in an important way from traditional laws of
war: they quite deliberately target civilians or noncombatants (the
categories generally overlap, but not always) in order to intensify the
shock effect of their acts.6 However, the very term “civilian noncom-
batants” is less clearly defined in a political system without a standing
military. Save for the Aurors, the Ministry does not possess a standing
armed force, so most people are not professional combatants. But not
as many need to be since, with wands as weapons, all qualified wizards
are likely to be armed at all times. This makes everyone a potential
combatant.
Even in the wizarding world, however, there are clear categories of
people who have to be considered defenseless. These include Muggles,
children, and the sick or incapacitated. We see many cases in which the
vulnerable status of victims clearly weighs on the cultural and moral
meaning of their targeting in wizarding society. We first see this in
Harry’s second year when we learn from Firenze of the consequences
of drinking unicorn blood. These arise from the fact that “you have
slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself” (Chamber 258).
The Heir of Slytherin clearly targets categories that would be for-
bidden in nearly any moral universe, whether wizard or Muggle: ani-
mals and children (and by targeting a range of students in fact muddies
any political message his actions might have). Sirius’s supposed mass-
Muggle-killing is cast as especially heinous because Muggles are seen
as being off-limits as well, defenseless as we are without wands and
magic to protect us. (Technically, of course, that murder would not
be considered terror as its purpose was apolitical.) And Sirius him-
self, when Pettigrew demurs that Voldemort would have killed him
had he not handed over the Potters, screams that the choice should
have been obvious—he should have died sooner than help Voldemort
take innocent lives (Prisoner 375). Finally, the Dementors are removed
from Hogwarts after they try to administer the kiss to “an innocent
boy” (Harry). (Prisoner 421).
Why Engage in Terror? It is easy to claim that people who engage in
terrorist acts; whether blowing themselves up on a bus or tormenting
Muggles, are either irrational or just mad. When Harry first meets
Stan Shunpike on the Knight Bus, Stan is fixated on Black’s supposed
madness (“inee mad, Ern?” [Prisoner 39]), as though it is almost a
comfort. There is less to fear from an odd madman or two, surely,
than from an organized political movement with the ability to ratio-
nally plan and execute violent acts. We can convince ourselves that
terrorists must be irrational because from an outsider’s perspective
there often seems to be so much to risk in acts of terror and so little

chance of long-term success. And the very shock value of terrorism
often turns audiences against the terrorists rather than sensitizing
them to the issues at hand.
However, for a variety of cultural, psychological, and practical rea-
sons, terror may appear to be the best option at hand. This is especially
the case for extremist groups, those who feel they have no stake in the
current societal order, those who perceive the world in Manichean
good-or-evil terms, and those who perceive themselves to be morally
superior to those around them. For instance, one of the most com-
mon psychological explanations focuses on the cultish appeal of some
terrorist organizations. Because of their propensity to create ingroup/
outgroup distinctions, such bodies often appeal to individuals who
lack other sources of identity or power, such as Pettigrew and Quirrell.
In fact, Dumbledore’s description of Riddle’s friends at Hogwarts
could apply to many a terror organization. They “had a kind of dark
glamour within the castle. They were a motley collection; a mixture
of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared
glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show
them more refined forms of cruelty” (Prince 361).
The most compelling reason to engage in terror, however, is that it
often works.
Why Terror Works. There are some things terror does very effec-
tively: raising the general level of societal fear, creating a sense of
uncertainty that can then be exploited to further the terrorists’ goals,
suppressing dissent, discrediting the regime in power, provoking gov-
ernment overreaction that in turn achieves this same aim, and poten-
tially providing a truly global audience for the terrorist message.
The first response to a terrorist act is usually elevation in the sense
of threat in the population: in individuals, between individuals, and
between societies. Diagon Alley’s stores close. Knockturn Alley
is deserted. Boisterous voices echo no more in Hogsmeade. In the
Muggle world, people buy duct tape and wonder about the immi-
grants down the street.
Uncertainty drives much of this fear. State terror can increase
uncertainty through arbitrariness, and this can lead to a higher level
of fear in the populace and a greater repressive capacity for the state.
But the uncertainty about the nature and threat of insurgent terror
derives primarily from its invisibility and unidentifiability. Who is a
Death Eater and who is not, for instance? We cannot just go around
pulling up everyone’s sleeves—and even if we did, we would not know
for certain whether those that bore the Mark were still on the Dark
side. And for us Muggles, the task is far more difficult—our identi-
fying marks take a much wider range of forms.
Invisibility is one key factor behind uncertainty, and the nature of
the terror act is another. It falls so far outside the bounds of ordinary
political symbolic discourse that it is by definition surprising and, of
course, unusual. Therein lies its power to shock, to wake us from quo-
tidian apathy.
This heightened level of societal fear and uncertainty has serious
effects on civil society and civil rights and liberties. If terror events
become widespread enough, people learn to keep their head down and
to be as unobtrusive as possible. This may make them less likely to be
targets for terror, but it may also make them reluctant to criticize the
government during times of crisis, when we become more reliant on
its protection, or at least more aware of that reliance.
It is that very reliance that is a powerful tool for insurgent groups
wishing to effect regime change (such as the several groups that have
operated in Iraq throughout the most recent conflict there). Terror
that goes on long enough and extends to targets that are valuable—in
material or emotive terms—serves fundamentally to discredit the gov-
ernment of the territory in which it is operating.
On the other hand, it can also do the opposite and provoke an
overreaction on the part of the state. A nonterrorist social move-
ment, the American civil rights movement, made some of its big-
gest gains in public opinion after the police overreacted with brutal
force to peaceful marches in the southern United States. In fact,
several terror groups such as the Red Army Faction in Germany have
acted with exactly this effect in mind, hoping to goad the state into
repressive tendencies that will then turn the population against the
state. Some speculate this was Al Qaeda’s long-term strategy in its
2001 attacks on the United States.7 The more invisible an insurgent
terror group, the more difficult it is to target security or infiltration
measures, and the more likely they are to be applied broadly across
the population.
Together these characteristics and effects give terror tactics and
those who practice them a powerful hold on the collective imagina-
tion. These can simultaneously make terror not only a particularly
vexing problem for those who want to fight it (usually, but not al-
ways, governments) —but also an opportunity that can be exploited
by unscrupulous governments.
However, “citizens chafing under even the most repressive systems
are likely to be alienated, rather than recruited, by genuine terrorism”
(Castro in Lackey 129).
Counterterror
Performing Counterterror. Just as acts of terror are acts before an
audience, so are acts of counterterror. In the Muggle world, this
audience consists of both the electorate (in a democratic polity) and the
terrorist organization. The electoral connection makes Muggle politi-
cians aware—sometimes painfully aware, as Rowling’s prime minister
reminds us at the outset of Prince—of their status in the public eye,
and gives them strong incentives to influence this in any way they can.
(For an excellent discussion of Rowling’s implicit critiques of, specifi-
cally, recent UK counterterrorist policy, see Rauhofer 2007.)
We do not know exactly what the electoral process is in the wizard-
ing world, but we know that officials can be sacked, and that they
worry about public opinion.
When the severity of the terrorist threat is uncertain, governments
have incentives to downplay threat. They may wish, for instance, to
stifle criticism for not doing enough to mitigate the threat. Draco sug-
gests Dumbledore is doing this after the attacks begin in Harry’s second
year, because otherwise “he’ll be sacked” (Chamber 222). At its most
extreme, downplaying becomes denial, something that seems second
nature to Fudge. Fudge (who does seem to be genuinely in denial,
not just downplaying for the public) of course spends most of Harry’s
fifth year at Hogwarts denying Voldemort’s return and the potential
resurrection of the Death Eaters. Fudge does this in classic ways: dis-
crediting the sources of information about the threat, combined with
sporadic token gestures toward eliminating the threat. However, as we
know, he goes after the wrong source—Sirius, rather than Voldemort.
However, serious threats usually reach the point at which the gov-
ernment can no longer deny their existence. When this threshold is
crossed, governments’ first concern is generally, as we know from both
Fudge and Scrimgeour, to make it clear that they are doing some-
thing—anything. Fudge, in a moment of relieved candor, calls Sirius’s
escape from Azkaban not highly “dangerous” but highly “embarrass-
ing” and is anxious to tell the Prophet about his recapture (Prisoner
416–17). After 9/11, the Bush administration took a number of dra-
matic steps to prevent future attacks, some of which actually addressed
the sources and effects of terror (e.g., invading Afghanistan), and some
of which did not, and may have produced more harm than good. For
instance, integrating the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) into the new Department of Homeland security (DHS) se-
verely hurt morale and organizational mission clarity at an impor-
tant and highly effective federal agency, and may have been partially
responsible for its pitiable response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster

(PBS Frontline episode: “After the Storm.” Pbs.org/frontline. Original
airdate October 2005). Similarly, Scrimgeour reorganizes several
Ministry departments including creating the new one that Arthur
Weasley is tapped to head, and of course during Voldemort’s earlier
reign of terror, new powers were given to Magical Law Enforcement
and the Auror Office (Goblet 527).
The incentive to make clear that one is doing something can lead
governments to choose strategies that are easy at the expense of strat-
egies that are effective. Critics of current counterterror policy in the
United States and Britain often use the analogy of the drunk who
loses his car keys and begins looking under the nearest streetlamp.
Another man comes along and, trying to help, asks the drunken man
where he lost the keys. The drunken man replies that he lost them
three blocks back, but that the light is better under the streetlamp
where he is standing. Dumbledore exhorts us at the end of Goblet that
in times of crisis we are often presented with choices “between what
is right and what is easy” (Goblet 724). Governments unfortunately
often make the choice to do what is easy rather than what is right.
(The Ministry in part looks for Sirius rather than Voldemort himself
as the latter is likely to be much harder to catch.) The imperative to
do something, anything, leads to two common practices that are easy,
but not right: scapegoating and profiling.
Those who perpetrate acts of terror are by definition, as we have
discussed, difficult to identify. Yet the public gets restless if enough time
goes by without any apparent progress toward identifying and contain-
ing the source of the threat. Therefore, individuals and groups often are
singled out for the cause of the government’s own self-preservation—
to provide evidence of its “progress.” Fudge makes clear that this scape-
goating is exactly what he is doing when he takes Hagrid into custody
after the opening of the Chamber—he believes he has to be seen to be
doing something, and Hagrid’s prior record is against him. Fudge as
good as admits that he thinks the real culprit may still be on the loose
when he assures Hagrid he will be released “if someone is caught”
(Chamber 261). There is a well-known criminal case from the 1960s
that poignantly illustrates this point. Two women in New York City
were brutally killed, and as long as the killer remained on the loose,
the city was terrorized. Understandably the Muggle “please-men”
were under great pressure to apprehend the killer. Fortunately, they
quickly arrested a black man who lived in the neighborhood, George
Whitmore, and obtained a full confession. The city breathed a sigh of
relief and the police were praised for their speed and skill. The only
wrinkle was that several months later another man turned himself
in for the crimes, made a full confession—and provided details only
the murderer would have known. Whitmore was innocent. He had
confessed, it transpired, after a full day and night of relentless ques-
tioning, no sleep, and promises by the police that he would receive a
lighter sentence if he pleaded guilty. (Whitmore’s case precipitated the
similar Miranda case and the required Miranda warnings that police
have been compelled to provide ever since [Warden 2012].)
Voldemort and the real Death Eaters are difficult to catch (and
remember, no Dementors are spotted anywhere near Hogwarts or
Hogsmeade even though everyone knows the Death Eaters are likely
to target Harry). On the other hand, Stan Shunpike and the other
three arrests made in the first months of Scrimgeour’s administra-
tion are easy, though according to Arthur, “Stan’s as much a Death
Eater as this Satsuma” (Prince 331). But the Ministry “has to be seen
to be doing something” (Chamber 261), and once arrests are made
“three arrests” sounds better than “three wrong arrests and releases”
as Arthur tells Harry in exasperation (Prince 331).
Scapegoating is dangerous, but profiling can be even more so, in
extending suspicion to a broad swath of society (using resources that
could otherwise be used to focus on more likely suspects) and also in
discriminating against and targeting groups based on broad demo-
graphic or other characteristics. In Harry’s world, of course, the pos-
sible grounds for profiling are a bit more, well, diverse. Harry himself
is profiled as a Parselmouth in his second year. The entire student
body’s orientation changes toward him when they hear him speak-
ing to the snake during his duel with Malfoy, because they know that
Slytherin himself was a Parselmouth. And yet they have better reason,
statistically speaking, to profile Harry than law enforcement agencies
do to profile people of Arab descent in the United States after 9/11.
Harry is one of two known Parselmouths at Hogwarts in the last
50 years, and the other did, after all, go on to become the greatest
Dark Wizard of the age. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were
not even American—and if they were they would be 19 among some
3 million. And when the US Federal Bureau of Investigation ask for
all records of everything at a hotel over a two week period,8 or the
London Metropolitan Police install enough cameras that the average
Londoner is filmed several times a day, who filters all that informa-
tion? Is it possible that the bigger the haystack, the harder to find the
needle?
Seeing and Seizing the Counterterror Opportunity. In 1787,
Alexander Hamilton predicted that in times of crisis, the newly
established balance of liberty and order in the American Constitution

would be easily upset. He anticipated that Americans would “resort
for repose and security to institutions which . . . destroy their civil and
political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to
run the risk of being less free.”
Perhaps it is not necessary to sacrifice civil liberties to gain safety.
But unfortunately, Hamilton turns out to have been rather better at
predictions than is Professor Trelawney. (See also Nexon 2007.)
The Garrison State. Often these sacrifices begin—and sometimes
end—in the understandable demands of a citizenry on its government
to provide greater protection against real or perceived external and
internal foes. But sometimes the sacrifices are born of a demand by
the government on its citizens. Again, this often starts as a legitimate
desire to protect the territory and populace of the nation-state. But it
sometimes originates in a desire to turn misfortune into opportunity—
the opportunity to consolidate state command over the resources
within it. Barty Crouch Sr., for instance, embodies this tendency for
legitimate security measures to create vested interests and become
ends unto themselves. Crouch was head of Magical Law Enforcement
during Voldemort’s first reign of terror, and worked hard against the
Dark Arts, but Sirius tells Harry this became such a mania with him
that he started to use tactics that were little better than those used by
the Death Eaters themselves. Sirius suspects that now Crouch is on
the hunt again because he believes one more capture will restore his
reputation (tarnished when his son was arrested) and give him another
shot at being minister (Goblet 527–29). Crouch still seems defensive
about his role 13 years later when he admonishes Amos Diggory: “I
trust you remember the many proofs I have given over a long career
that I despise and detest the Dark Arts and those who practice them?”
(Goblet 136). As discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4, these vested
interests in security as an end unto itself arise in organizations as well as
individuals, and can come to approximate both Dwight Eisenhower’s
“military industrial complex” and Harold Lasswell’s hypothetical but
far more sweeping “garrison state.”
First described in Lasswell’s seminal 1941 article of the same
name (Lasswell 1941), a garrison state is one in which continuous
and amorphous threats produce long-term unforeseen consequences.
These include a preoccupation with security, conformity, and surveil-
lance, a glorifying of military service and modes of organization, and
a devaluing of due process. George Orwell has perhaps painted the
most famous picture of a garrison state in extremis in his 1950 novel
1984 (Orwell 1950).
Due Process. The elements of due process, as enshrined in Western

legal tradition and discussed in detail in Chapter 3, are at the heart
of a free society and among the highest values any government is
responsible for upholding. And yet government after government, in
both the wizarding and the Muggle worlds, have repeatedly chosen to
violate these principles in the name of security and safety. In Harry’s
world we see counterterror measures lead to violations of the principles
of equality before the law, the right of habeus corpus, the right to a fair
and speedy jury trial, the prohibition of suspect modes of gathering
evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the rules of sentencing.
First, the temptation to profile tends quickly to lead to the estab-
lishment of different legal categories of persons, threatening to gut
guarantees of equal protection before the law. Barty Crouch’s son,
for instance, is not given the chance to speak in his own defense and
is silenced by the court (Goblet 528). Sirius even speculates that the
trial was just an opportunity for Crouch to publicly display how much
he hated his son, and to further distance himself from him (Goblet
528). The US 2006 Military Commissions Act establishes an entire
category of “enemy combatants,” which can apply to US citizens as
well as foreign nationals. Such persons are summarily stripped of
their right to a trial at all, rather as Sirius was after Pettrigrew framed
him (Goblet 526).
Sirius’s denial of a trial also violates the right to habeus corpus—
the last resort of the accused. We may well hope that the US detain-
ees at Guantanamo Bay who are also being denied this right will not
have to wait 13 years for their cases to be heard, and that they, like
Sirius, manage to maintain their sanity. In light of such blatant mis-
carriages of justice, we might also forget that not only are trials sup-
posed to be held, but that they are supposed to be speedy (some of
the detainees at Guantanamo have been held for nearly six years) and
supposed to take place in front of a jury of one’s peers. While some
of the accused Death Eaters during Voldemort’s first reign of terror
did receive a jury trial, anyone declared an enemy combatant under
the Military Commissions Act will not have this guarantee. The
awful and yet logical punchline to this suspension of basic liberties
is that those declared enemy combatants, and therefore unworthy of
any traditional US legal protections, are not even guaranteed to be
told why they have received this designation. It can be made based on
secret evidence that is not shared with them if a judge or prosecutor
can argue that its revelation endangers “national security.”
Of course trials are only as good as the evidence that is presented
therein. And yet times of crisis—times when identifying people who
constitute threats is the most important—are the very times govern-

ments are most likely to suspend usual rules of evidence gathering
in the name of finding a reason—perhaps any reason—to round up
those that seem most likely to cause threat. Fear leads to panic, which
never, for individuals or organizations, yields ideal decision-making
processes. It is difficult to sympathize with the Malfoys when their
manor is searched twice on Harry’s tip-offs, even though Arthur
seems able to conduct the raids without clearing it with anyone else.
But we may have a different reaction to this same practice in a differ-
ent setting, applied to different targets—like the thousands of inno-
cent Americans who were targeted during the Palmer Raids in the
1920s, or potentially any American (without notification) under the
USA-PATRIOT Act, or the possibility that under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act 1989, suspects can be held for up to five days without
charge .
When people are terrified for their physical safety, and come to
think that danger can lurk around any corner, presumption of inno-
cence quickly gives way to presumption of guilt. Crouch is so shaken
by the appearance of the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup,
for instance, that he accuses both Winky and Harry with only the
most circumstantial of evidence (Goblet 136–38). Perhaps even more
dangerous, the people themselves may begin to change their assump-
tions about each other, and may start to conflate suspicion of guilt
with evidence of guilt. When Harry sees Crouch Jr. sneaking around
Snape’s office on the Marauder’s Map, Ron reaffirms his assertion that
Snape is still a Death Eater, asking “Why are all these Dark wizard
catchers searching his office then?” (Goblet 48). Similarly the thou-
sands of detainees held at Guantanamo and American prisons abroad
without trial or representation are essentially being punished based on
profiles and circumstantial evidence such as their social networks.
The final stage in distributing justice is the sentencing stage. It
is generally understood that sentences ought to be determined sepa-
rately from guilt, so that mitigating or aggravating circumstances may
be taken into account. However, we clearly see Barty Crouch Sr. ask
the jury in the Lestrange/Crouch Jr. trial to issue a ruling on guilt (for
that is the purpose of the trial, as we have seen earlier in Dumbledore’s
memory) and a sentence at the same time, even as he suggests what
this sentence should be and how they should vote (Goblet 595). If we
can sense that this is rather unfair even to probable Death Eaters like
Barty Crouch Jr., how much more unfair is it to American citizens
who can be judged and sentenced before a military tribunal without
ever being presented with the evidence against them? Sirius’s case is
even worse. Since he was never given a fair trial in the first place, the
fact that the Dementors are authorized to use lethal force against him
after his escape amounts to a summary execution—forbidden in nearly
every known moral and legal system.
Culture of Fear . One of Jack Zipes’s many criticisms of Rowling’s
work is that it reflects so much of the paranoia of our time (Zipes 181).
But might some of that have to do with how much paranoia there is
to reflect? States that exist in a protracted state of crisis of any kind, in
particular a crisis whose sources seem omnidirectional, are also likely
to suffer subtler and therefore, more pernicious and dangerous effects
on personal liberty—more dangerous because they stain the fabric of
everyday life and the interwoven societal relations that constitute it.
These effects include restrictions on freedom of the press and expan-
sion of government surveillance capacity, as well as a more generalized
sense of fear and suspicion.
The Ministry of Magic is very obvious, to the point of clumsiness,
in its use of the Prophet for political means—first discrediting Harry
and Dumbledore, and then, when Voldemhort’s return becomes too
obvious to ignore, reporting its own achievements on a regular basis,
even though they are largely hollow ones. (The Scrimgeour admin-
istration seems slightly less blunt in its use of the press.) This clearly
compromises the reliability of the Prophet as a source of information, a
serious problem since it appears to have little real competition (though
Luna would hate to hear that!). Restrictions on freedom of the press of
course violate one of the fundamental tenets of a democratic society,
which is that citizens have access to a free marketplace of ideas so
they can make informed and accurate decisions about their own gov-
ernance. Unfortunately, the Ministry is following in a time-shamed
tradition that includes Abraham Lincoln’s censoring of the wire ser-
vices during the American Civil War and Woodrow Wilson’s use of
the Espionage Act (1918) to arrest newspaper editors who published
information or opinions that could be considered “embarrassing” to
America, let alone overtly critical of the war effort.
Government surveillance of its population is a particularly dan-
gerous aspect of counterterror efforts because it is at once less obvious
than other forms of counterterror mobilization, and because govern-
ment and law enforcement agents tend to make two superficially com-
pelling but logically false arguments regarding surveillance.
The first of these is that only someone doing something “wrong”
would be concerned about being surveilled. But what is seen as “wrong”
is as potentially fluid as the definitions of terror themselves. History
is replete with cases where intelligence-gathering systems designed to
capture a particular person, group, or kind of target ended up being

used to target all kinds of other behavior including legitimate dis-
sent. Woodrow Wilson’s use of the Espionage Act certainly consti-
tutes such an abuse, as of course does Umbridge’s patrolling of the
Floo Network at Hogwarts on the pretext of looking for anti-Ministry
activities, but in fact attempting to catch Black during a private con-
versation with Harry.
The second common defense of surveillance is that it is “only”
gathering information, rather than changing or constraining anyone’s
behavior. This is also patently false as social psychologists have docu-
mented a widespread effect on dissent and free speech known as “chill-
ing.” Chilling is self-censorship that occurs when people know that
there is a possibility that they are being monitored. The very knowl-
edge that this might be the case changes the way they behave and
limits their free expression, without any use of physical force. Jeremy
Bentham recognized this as far back as the eighteenth century. An
English philosopher, Bentham suggested that prisons be arranged so
that prisoners never knew when they were being monitored but always
knew that they might be being monitored. This would force the pris-
oners to internalize the guards’ desired norms of behavior (Bentham
1991:1787). Harry clearly has to practice regular and serious self-
censorship. During many of the times that Harry most needs to talk
to Sirius or Dumbledore, he decides he cannot, often because lines
of communication are being monitored. This keeps him from seeking
advice on certain matters where an adult’s perspective would prob-
ably be useful, or even alerting them to Umbridge’s torture tactics.
Certainly numerous academics and activists in the United States and
Britain have reported that their academic freedom and productivity
have suffered under the increased surveillance authorized since the
9/11 and 7/7 attacks.
While efficacy would not justify mass surveillance, it is worth-
while to note that the greatly expanded surveillance capacity of the
United States and British governments in recent years has been piti-
ably unsuccessful, in part because of the “needle in a larger haystak”
issue. We know that even before 9/11 US intelligence operatives were
not able to keep up with the levels of signals intelligence coming in,
and new surveillance practices authorized under the USA-Patriot
(2001) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (1978) Acts have yielded
no new leads. The massive deployment of video surveillance cameras
in London has similarly caught far more petty criminals than ter-
rorists, and did not serve to prevent the 7/7 attacks on the London
transport system. And Umbridge did not catch Harry by watching the
Floo Network, but rather through good old-fashioned spying by her

Inquisitorial Squad.
The Price of Security. Sirius concludes his description of Barty
Crouch’s efforts against Dark wizards with the words, “I would say he
became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side” (Goblet 527).
As noted in the case of the Red Army Faction, often terror organiza-
tions hope to goad the state into repressive acts in an “escalatory dia-
lectic” (Erickson 2004) that will ultimately reveal what they believe is
the true nature of the state, thereby catalyzing the larger population
to rise up against it. But even without such a deliberate strategy on
the part of the terrorist organization, it is often a short road from
pursuing security as an instrumental good, to pursuing state control
as an end unto itself. We have seen this happen in, for instance, the
Soviet Union under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Cambodia under
Pol Pot, and North Korea under Kim Jong Il. When state control
becomes an end rather than a means, moral restrictions on security
measures are likely to dissolve. When it becomes acceptable to torture
those suspected of torturing, or kill those suspected of killing, does
the state (or whoever is fighting terror) maintain any moral superiority
over the “terrorist” organizations? This is the ultimate question raised
by the Ministry’s use of the Unforgiveable curses, lethal force, and
Dementor’s kisses against suspected Dark wizards, and the US mil-
itary personnel’s use of torture and physical, sexual, and psycholog-
ical degradation, sometimes to the point of death, against suspected
terror and insurgent operatives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo,
and elsewhere. In both cases the “legitimate” authority uses tactics
that physically and psychologically destroy its enemies and suspected
enemies, and that constitutes as cruel and unusual, as asymmetrical,
and as shocking a performance as those of the terrorist organizations
themselves. It behaves in a manner that vindicates Voldemort’s belief
that there is no “good” or “evil,” only power.
The final, and most tragic, element of the culture of fear in a polity
pertains to the complex and delicate web of interpersonal relations
that is the foundation of civil society itself. In certain forms of the gar-
rison state, especially where the enemy is invisible, and therefore, can
be cast as being anyone, anywhere, the government regularly plays on
citizens’ fears to enlist their help in monitoring and controlling each
others’ behavior. During times of real or perceived internal or external
threat, in Red Scare America, Cold War (especially Stalinist) Russia,
Nazi Germany and countless other polities, friends, neighbors, lov-
ers, and even family members have turned each other in, in the name
of allegiance to the state and fear of outside threats. In extremis this
has the ultimate effect of rending all bonds of loyalty between people
and leaving only loyalty to the state. If government’s raison d’etre is
to serve, and better the lives of its people, this is the greatest possible
perversion of governmental purpose. It is fascism, and in it we all
become member-and victim—of the Inquisitorial Squad. Surely this
is worse—by far—than being a victim of “terrorism.”
Conclusion
I believe Rowling wants us to take away at least two major messages
from our experience of terror in Harry’s world. As Castro says in
observing the Ministry response to Voldemort’s rise: “The dangerous
thing, of course, is that there is no bottom line. The more repressive
a society becomes, the more repressive it tries to become. There’s a
steady progression from shutting somebody up to shuting him away,
from discouraging certain curricula to outlawing them, from curtail-
ing some rights to taking away all of them” (Castro in Lackey, 127).
Second, “she portrays how terrorism and violence deaden the souls
of those who commit it and those who must endure it” (Garrett 73,
emphasis mine). Put another way that will be familiar to most of us
from civil liberties debates since 9/11 and 7/7: “When we behave like
terrorists, they’ve won, even if what we are doing has now become
legal.”
When Fudge visits the “other Minister” at the outset of Prince, the
prime minister asks him, rather hopefully, we imagine, if he is not
exaggerating a bit when he calls the conflict with Voldemort and the
Death Eaters a “war.” Can we fight “wars” against terrorist tactics, or
against the people doing them, the same way that nation-states fight
each other? Or is this something else altogether?
If it is, then it is likely that “war” as we know it is on the decline,
giving way to a new era of asymmetrical conflicts in which one or
more key players will often be a nonstate actor. The nature of war in
Harry’s world, and in ours, is taken up next.
Chapter 7
Th e Or de r of t h e P hoe n i x :
I n t e l l ige nc e , C ou n t e r i n t e l l ige nc e ,
a n d Se c r e t Age nc i e s
“You don’t think they’re watching the house?”

“Watching—spying—might be following us,” muttered Uncle
Vernon wildly.
—Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (36)
B eing watched by anyone can be potentially threatening. When the

watcher is the government, its gaze implies consequences, measured in
the provision of benefits—or the application of sanctions. And a gaze
becomes all the more threatening when the watcher is an enemy, an
Other whose motives we may inherently distrust.
Uncle Vernon distrusts the magical world for many reasons, but the
most important is simply its difference. (How often do we similarly
distrust difference simply out of instinct?) When Vernon realizes that
those “weirdos” inexplicably know intimate details of Dursley life, he
takes the family on the run in a desperate attempt to escape the threat-
ening gaze. When magic effectively tracks the Dursleys despite these
attempts, its superior spycraft sends Vernon soundly over the edge.
The Role of Intelligence and

Counterintelligence in Creating Political
Authority and Legitimacy
What makes intelligence gathering activities such powerful, and fright-
ening, tools?
In fact, information, and access to it, have always been the currency
of creating and maintaining political power. After September 11,
2001, and nearly every other perceived security crisis in the United
States, the government has claimed the right to access individuals’
personal records. While done in the name of discovering and prevent-
ing future attacks, most citizens have balked at this intrusion. They
instinctively fear what history demonstrates: such powers, though ex-
panded to address a short-term and perhaps real threat, persist long
after the initial need has been met.
Defenders of government surveillance have argued in each instance
that innocent people have nothing to fear from a benign Big Brother
looking over their shoulders. But defenders of civil liberties counter
that such actions have a “chilling effect” on the free speech, and free
interchange of ideas, at the heart of democracy. The “chilling effect,”
which has been demonstrated in multiple experimental settings, the
immeasurable but not insignificant extent to which individuals self-
censor in anticipation of state censorship. The existence of the chilling
effect means that the very possibility of state surveillance undercuts
the freedom of speech necessary for basic human dignity and for civic
engagement in a vibrant democracy, and circumscribes political expres-
sion to parameters established by the major powerholders in a society.
So how does intelligence function as the currency of political au-
thority and legitimacy? First, let’s review the difference between the
two, discussed in some detail in Chapter 2. Authority in this sense
may be understood as simply the exercise of political power. In more
democratic governments, authority is exercised on the basis of a claim
of legitimacy—that is, explicit or tacit approval of the population.
However, we know that too many historical examples exist of the
exercise of authority without legitimacy. Such governments, who sus-
pect their popular support is threatened, often attempt to bolster their
own legitimacy by manufacturing popular support for themselves or
their policies.
Jo Rowling is particularly aware of the extent to which authority
and legitimacy are not always contiguous. She demonstrates early
on that politicians like Fudge often are mere figureheads, and that
equality before the law is little more than a ruse. Power often seems
not to derive from the law, or popular consent, but from control of
information.
In international relations, “intelligence” refers to any to information
that gives you additional predictive power over the future. The most
valuable intelligence allows you to minimize the probability of nega-
tive developments, and maximize the probability of positive ones.
Th e O r de r of t h e P hoe n i x 119
The clinical nature of this definition certainly creates a sharp con-

trast with popular spy fiction! But in fact, useful intelligence may often
be found in the most mundane places, and for every James Bond there
are thousands of intelligence analysts sifting through hours of thor-
oughly tedious data. Intelligence can be generally classed as either
“humint” (human intelligence, that is, sources of information who are
willing to transmit it to the enemy for pay or other reward) or “sigint”
(signals intelligence, that is, intercepted communication).
Methods of Gathering Intelligence

Intercepting Personal Communication. One of the most common
means of gathering intelligence is to intercept communications that
are presumed private, whether through extendable ears or more con-
ventional means. While in the Muggle world this generally involves
tampering with mail, tapping phones or computers, or installing lis-
tening or videorecording devices in targets’ homes or offices, wizards
have some far more colorful techniques.
Sometimes these techniques parallel our own. McGonagall, for in-
stance, warns Harry during Umbridge’s reign of terror “that channels
of communication in and out of Hogwarts may be being watched”
(Phoenix 359). But often there’s no need to intercept an owl or watch
the Floo Network. Simply listening closely to conversation around
you can do the trick (though dressing as a witch can help, at least if
you’re Mundungus Fletcher!). Nowhere in Hogsmeade seems safe for
Harry, Ron, and Hermione, even the dodgy Hogs’ Head. In fact,
as Sirius reminds them, sometimes deserted locations are even more
dangerous than crowded ones. The emptier a locale, the less there is
to distract listeners from anything you might like to keep to yourself
(Phoenix 369–71). This is a rule that Muggle spies have lived by for
time immemorial (Spying 7).
Cryptography. Cryptography, the art of communicating in (and
breaking) codes, is probably the best known of the tools of spycraft.
Codetalking abounds in the magical world, and, as in ours, those pro-
ficient in it acquire a certain dangerous glamor. Harry’s proficiency
in Parseltongue, for instance, is both a blessing and a curse in this
sense. It’s quite useful for freeing boa constrictors with a hankering
for Brazil, for intervening in duels gone wrong, and for gaining access
to secret chambers. But it’s also distinctly creepy—creepy enough to
convince the entire school that Harry is the heir of Slytherin.
Of course, to Muggles, wizards may sound as though they are speak-
ing in code all the time! Remember the reaction of the old caretaker
of the Riddle house, Frank Bryce? When he hears the terms “Ministry
of Magic,” “wizards,” and “Muggles,” he is certain he is hearing code
(and is therefore certain that the people he is overhearing are either
spies or criminals(Goblet 8)). He was, at least, partially right.
In the Muggle world, cryptography goes back to nearly the be-
ginning of recorded history; the Code of Hammurabi, for instance,
includes rules about the treatment of enemy intelligence agents. The
race to keep codemaking ahead of the enemy’s codebreaking has even
driven many of history’s most important technological leaps. Most
famously, during WWII, the need to decode Nazi codes created with
German Enigma encryption machines led to the development of the
first modern computer, Colossus, at Bletchley Park outside of London.
Both systems, Enigma and Colossus, were nothing short of genius. At
Hogwarts, when Umbridge and her minions compromise the Floo
Network, the Order finds “more reliable” methods of communication
(Phoenix 830).
Disguises. It can be just as effective to disguise the source, as the
content of information. There are two reasons for this. First, the con-
tent of information takes on an entirely different meaning when it
appears to come from a different source. Second, intelligence gath-
ering is much easier when your sources believe they can trust you.
Muggle intelligence agents have stopped just this side of magic to
conceal their true identity. While most of us know the story of the
Trojan Horse, fewer are aware that American troops in WWII dis-
guised themselves in a (papier-mache) horse carcass, complete with
gun emplacement in its anus. Old Voldemort wasn’t exactly original,
it seems, in concealing Nagini in Bagshot’s hide. As Arthur Weasley
would appreciate, Muggles’ lack of magical powers has necessitated a
great deal of inventiveness. Now, imagine if they had wizards’ means
to change their appearance!
It seems that Metamorphmagi are the most skilled in this area,
being able to transform their appearance at will and without the aid
of potions or (verbal) spells. However as Tonks tells us, these are very
rare and one cannot train to become one. Metamorphmagus status is
congenital, so we cannot really consider this a tool of disguise that can
be adopted at will.
Animagi are among the most skilled in this area, since they too can
transform at will and back again without the aid of potions or spells—
at least into their chosen animal. But there are certain missions that
would be difficult to execute as an animal—let alone the single an-
imal into which each Animagus can transform. Once the details of
that animal are known, it’s of limited utility as a disguise. However,
theoretically Animagi have to be registered—though we know that

the Animagus who most effectively uses her powers to gather intelli-
gence—Rita Skeeter—is not registered (and appears never to have been
prosecuted). Given all that, we see their Animagus status being very
effectively used for intelligence gathering by Rita, Peter, and Sirius.
Polyjuice potion gets around one of the major drawbacks that
Animagi face. With it, you can potentially become exactly who you
want to be. But you first have to obtain a part of your intended disguise
(and we know how dramatically that can go wrong from Hermione’s
experience!), and it takes an awfully long time to make.So it’s of lim-
ited utility in an active war, or any time you do not have six months
prior notice. What’s more, all that work only yields about an hour’s
worth of usable cover (and Polyjuice Potion can wear off at the most
inconvenient of times—during a conversation with Malfoy, say, when
you are supposed to be his best friend but are, in reality, his worst
enemy).
In a pinch, there are other short-term magical remedies that may
at least conceal your identity, even if they don’t give you a great deal
of control over the results. Thinking fast after the Snatchers arrive,
Hermione hits Harry with a stinging hex to disfigure his all-too-
recognizable face—and it works well enough to allow even Draco to
plausibly deny recognizing him.
Finally, wizards appreciate that sometimes you can’t do better than
good old-fashioned Muggle costumes, and it needn’t be as elaborate
as Mundungus’ witch costume. The Quidditch World Cup attendees
may be a bit misguided in their idea of what makes a good Muggle
costume, but they all make a good effort, and apparently think they’ve
done a bang-up job.
Psychological Warfare. For at least the last hundred years, intelli-
gence agencies have attempted to break through what might be the
best counterintelligence tools of their rivals: the minds of their agents.
Veritaserum exists in Snape’s dungeon, but Muggles are not without
their approximations. While sodium pentathol may be the most fa-
mous truth serum, modern intelligence agencies have not been reluc-
tant to experiment with LSD, PCP, and other hallucinogens. All of
these, however, have demonstrably damaged subjects’ reliability, not
improved it. Veritaserum they are not.
Snape doesn’t actually need Veritaserum, since he can perform leg-
ilemency. The intelligence agencies of many countries, including the
United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, have all attempted
to “break into” the minds of their opponents, as Snape puts it. Snape,
who thinks Harry lacks subtlety, would almost certainly not think our
methods of “enhanced interrogation” very sophisticated: the water-

boarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory manipula-
tion discussed later are all meant to basically have the same effects
as a Dementor: derealize and depersonalize subjects so that they no
longer feel the personal attachments that lead them to stay loyal to a
particular country or cause. It is expected that they will then have no
reason not to tell their captors what they want to hear. (This has been
demonstrated to be patently ineffectual.)
More subtly, some intelligence officers are trained to apply psycho-
analytic techniques to divine when a subject is likely to be lying—but
none of these, including polygraphs—are foolproof. In fact, a 1997
survey of 421 psychologists estimated polygraphs’ average accuracy at
only about 61 percent (Vergano 2002). In 1998, a majority opinion in
the US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer stated, “There is
simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable” (US v Scheffer,
523 US 303 [1998]).
Of course, if we are trying to break into the minds of others, we
must assume they are doing the same. Just as Dumbledore thinks it
essential Harry learn occlumency, we teach our own military SERE:
Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape. SERE training subjects sol-
diers to mock capture, imprisonment, and vigorous interrogation, so
that they are more prepared for, and less likely to quickly fold, under
the real thing.
Disinformation. Implanting information can be just as important as
extracting it. This can be done in several very distinct ways. US admin-
istrations, convinced we could lead by example, have exhorted mili-
tary leaders to “win the hearts and minds” of civilians in war zones.
(This is, in fact, the original mission of an entire branch of the US
Army, Civil Affairs.) This is deemed to be so important, even in set-
tings where the civilian population exercises little direct control over
the military, that propaganda wars have been waged in every modern
war for the purpose of destroying the enemy’s morale. In the wizard-
ing world, manipulation of people’s perceptions and motivations tends
to be performed at a much more individual level—with the useful and
subtle Confundus Curse, or, if more direct control is neccessary (and
the severe consequences can be ignored), with the Imperius Curse.
The Unforgiveable Curses as Tools of Spycraft. This brings us to
the three Unforgivable Curses. While they can all be used in more
than intelligence work, they all have special applications to spycraft.
If Rowling considers these to be the three worst things one can do
with magic, what are the Muggle equivalents that she is therefore
indicting?
Avada Kedavara—the killing curse—is perhaps the most obvious

and straightforward. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is no right more
basic than the right to one’s life. Just as murder is everywhere con-
sidered the gravest of offences, so is Avada Kedavara. (Note here the
neat way that Rowling ties together a play on the old magician’s term
“abracadabra” and the Greek term for “cadaver”!)
The second curse that is unforgivable is the Cruciatus Curse—the
torture curse. In light of her human rights background, Rowling’s
message here seems obvious. Torture is a blatant violation of not only
most moral codes but nearly every major international human rights
treaty (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Geneva
Conventions). Debate over torture has been particularly heated since
9/11, under the aegis of the War on Terror and the US/Coalition wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Advocates, especially in the George W Bush
administration, have argued that torture is justifiable in some extreme
circumstances—perhaps a “ticking time bomb” scenario, in which a
suspect has valuable information that could save lives, but that must
be extracted in a short period of time. These advocates argue that it is
more important in this case to extract the information quickly than to
rely on long-term imprisonment wearing down the suspect’s resolve,
or to respect the suspect’s right to bodily integrity (let alone a pre-
sumption of innocence).
While many (including Rowling, I suspect) believe torture is unjus-
tifiable on any grounds, it also is impractical for the very purposes its
advocates claim justify its use. In test after test, torture has proven to
be an ineffective method of extracting accurate information. Generally
speaking, suspects being tortured will attempt to provide the answers
they believe their questioners want to hear, rather than answers that
are accurate. They report making up information and taking wild
guesses. In fact, tremendous physical and psychological pain often
drives victims to insanity or death—past the point of being able to
provide accurate or useful information even if they wanted to!
This is, of course, precisely what happened to Neville Longbottom’s
parents, Frank and Alice. As Aurors, they were highly threatening to
Voldemort and so were tortured into insanity by Bellatrix. In the wiz-
arding world or ours, all evidence indicates that torture produces less
useful evidence than other questioning methods, not more.
Aware of the criticisms and controversies, the Bush Administration
Defense and Justice Departments on several occasions claimed to be
using not torture but rather “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
These included diabolical practices such as sleep deprivation, stress
positions, and waterboarding, as well as psychological and emotional

torture such as threatening suspects with dogs and forcing them to
spend long periods of time naked. Surely all of these tactics would,
in most contexts, incontrovertibly constitute torture. In fact, most
international legal bodies have condemned the Bush administration’s
attempts to legalize something that has been condemned throughout
jurisprudential history, simply by applying a prettier label.
This brings us to the final unforgivable curse, the Imperius Curse.
While akin to the Muggle concept of “mind control,” it entails a com-
plete and potentially long-term control of its subjects’ actions, some-
thing Muggles have never approached, despite extensive, illegal, and
ultimately fatal experimentation programs (by the US, Soviet, and
Chinese governments among others). In contrast, the Imperius Curse
appears to be quite long lasting when properly executed. Barty Crouch
Jr. was kept under it for months. After Voldemort failed to kill baby
Harry, many Death Eaters claimed to have been victims of similar
effects. Furthermore, its effects appear to be quite precise, allowing
control over such minutiae as opening vaults and remembering codes.
The curse also appears to work even if the one casting it is not contin-
ually present. Finally, it appears to be relatively reliable. For instance,
Hermione successfully executes it for the very first time in one of the
highest security environments imaginable—Gringotts.
Why does Jo Rowling believe that this kind of control is worth
classifying with the other Unforgivables? We can imagine some rea-
sons, certainly. While controlling someone’s actions may not seem as
violent as killing or torturing them,it removes something essential to
their humanity—their free will. Furthermore, since the curse does not
leave a trace, it would not be obvious that the cursed person was under
someone else’s control—and confounds principles of legal and moral
responsibility, as noted in Chapter 3.
Counterintelligence. Counterintelligence activities are those that
prevent, block, or otherwise neutralize intelligence-gathering tactics
used by the other side. This could refer, for instance, to scrambling
signals intelligence or feeding misinformation to known informants.
Hogwarts, for example, may have the most state-of-the-art signals in-
telligence scrambling protocol anywhere. As Hermione observes: “All
those substitutes for magic Muggles use—electricity, computers, and
radar, and all those things—they all go haywire around Hogwarts”
(Goblet 548).
The Ministry takes counterintelligence seriously. After Voldemort
is reborn, the Ministry devotes all its efforts to cover up and none
to preparation for battle. It does so to maintain its own legitimacy.
For if the public learns of Voldemort’s return, it will be obvious that

the Ministry either did not gather, or ignored, intelligence about
his intentions, or was powerless to stop him. There’s even an entire
office dedicated to denying his return, the Office of Misinformation.
The more active the Death Eaters become, the greater their work-
load. Fudge laments that by the opening of Book Six “[t]he Office of
Misinformation has been working around the clock” (Prince 13).
Since any state enaged in intelligence activities must assume (realism,
again!) that other states are engaged in similar activities, it must use
something akin to judo, turning others’ intelligence gathering to its
own advantage. If you know what communications channels others are
monitoring, for instance, you can be sure that messages sent through
those channels are likely to reach their leadership. Therefore, you can
use those channels to disseminate misleading information. In the days
leading up to the invasion of Normandy in WWII, Allied commanders
effectively used compromised German intelligence agents in Britain to
disseminate plans for a (fictitious) landing at Calais. Though aided by
significant efforts to create the aerial and radar appearance of an in-
vading force, the deception—crucial to the success of the Normandy
invasion—would have been impossible without knowing precisely who
the German agents were in London. In a similar way, we see the Order
disseminating competing stories about the time of Harry’s move, and
staging not one but six dummy operations.
Intelligence Agents
The thing that most constrains use of intelligence is the need to pro-
tect sources. If you act on a piece of intelligence that could only have
been gathered from one source, that source is instantly revealed—and
instantly neutralized. Recall that Harry must constantly be on guard
to not reveal how much of his information comes from Sirius, suppos-
edly on the run in Tibet! And when the impostor Moody seizes the
Marauder’s Map during the Triwizard Tournament, Harry worries less
about surrendering the map than revealing its provenance—for “the
story of how it had fallen into his hands incriminated not only him,
but his own father, Fred and George Weasley, and Professor Lupin”
(Goblet 477).
If ever there was a source worth protecting, surely it is Severus
Snape. At first glance, Snape (especially as written by Rowling, rather
than played by Alan Rickman) appears in every way the antithesis of a
James Bond or Jason Bourne, who are dashing, smooth, sexy, and just
the right amount of dangerous. But the three are similarly fated to a
permanent distrust, and, often, distaste, from those who know or sus-
pect their roles. Allegations of spying in the wizarding world are nearly
always enough to tarnish a reputation, and sometimes enough to earn
a trip to Azkaban. No one wants to be “convicted of leaking Ministry
of Magic Secrets to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” (Phoenix 44).
So who makes a good secret agent? Well, in a sense, the entire wiz-
arding world seems primed for it. As Travis Prinzi observes, the com-
bination of secrecy and power has great potential for making wizards
dangerous (2009: 246). Wizards can easily make use of their magical
powers when most Muggles are unwilling to believe in that which
they cannot understand. But the single most important quality a use-
ful secret agent must have is trust—the trust of his handlers, and the
trust of his target. The higher the level of trust, the more useful the
agent. Why? Let’s take an example. Though Professor Quirrell is the
first undercover agent we meet, is actually of limited use. Voldemort
makes quite clear that he uses Quirrell only because he will have
access to Hogwarts. The Dark Lord knows he will not yet have won
Dumbledore’s trust, and believes Quirrell to be too weak to be of use
beyond getting the Stone. He is thus quite willing to sacrifice him.
Similarly, though Ron doesn’t trust Viktor Krum (especially after
Viktor takes an interest in Hermione), Durmstrang’s antipathy toward
Hogwarts is just what makes Krum of limited utility as a spy. The
Hogwarts students are a bit distrustful of everyone from Durmstrang,
and are unlikely to reveal any intimate secrets, no matter how Ron
accuses Hermione of “fraternizing with the enemy” (Goblet 6).
Similarly, though Ron may be right that Percy is only being promoted
to spy on his family, closer consideration suggests that he, too, will
be fairly useless. The whole family already knows he is loyal first and
foremost to himself and his own ambitions, so will not be discussing
plans with him that might endanger the larger cause. Personal ambi-
tion is also seen as dangerous in Muggle intelligence agencies. Agents
need to know when to talk and when not to. Poor Percy, however, just
can’t help himself, so proud is he of his access to any shred of privi-
leged information. Recall that before the Triwizard tournament he is
simply bursting to tell Harry, Ron, and Hermione that he knows of an
upcoming event at Hogwarts, and, more importantly, that it is “top-
secret”! Classic Percy—but something a real intelligence agent would
never do. A good rule of thumb: anyone who brags about their access
probably doesn’t have very good access.
There’s one exception to this rule, however. Some spies are intended
to be obvious. Hermione, who says, “Of course she’s here to spy on us
all, that’s obvious” (Phoenix 252), can’t be the only one who’s paying
attention during Umbridge’s little welcome lecture. Umbridge as good

as says she’s there to report to the Ministry, and the press releases
that follow in the Daily Prophet make it clear that she’s got Fudge’s
full blessing. And anyone who was too busy stuffing his face at the
feast would certainly have no questions about her purpose after the
first Defense against the Dark Arts (DADA) class—whatever caused
Fudge to select her, it seems a good bet it wasn’t her teaching talent or
practical prowess. If we had any doubt that it’s loyalty that makes her
valuable to Fudge, she proceeds to list about 47 ways in which their
DADA instruction up to this point has been flawed—always basing
her right to criticize in Ministry authority.
From the point of view of the resistance, Arthur, Tonks, and
Shacklebolt are especially valuable members of the Order because they
are in the Ministry, and Tonks and Kingsley, at least, keep their re-
sistance ties quiet. We’ll recall that Kingsley even heads up the hunt
for Sirius, and keeps “discovering” evidence that Sirius is in Tibet!
(Phoenix 95).
It was this kind of insider access that makes Peter Pettigrew a valu-
able asset for Voldemort, at least for a while. Because he was so close
to the Potters, he can give Voldemort access no one else can. In fact,
when Sirius is framed, his accusers use precisely his friendship with the
Potters to explain why Voldemort would have wanted him as an ally.
In retrospect, Flitwick remarks on the fact that James and Sirius were
“inseparable” (“You’d have thought Black and Potter were brothers!”),
and Fudge elaborates that “Potter trusted Black beyond all his other
friends.”
Mundungus Fletcher is an interesting case, here. Sirius says
Mundungus is in the Order because, “He’s useful . . . Knows all the
crooks—well, he would, seeing as he’s one himself. But he’s also very
loyal to Dumbledore . . . It pays to have someone like Dung around,
he hears things we don’t” (Phoenix 87). But Mundungus, perhaps
improbably, shares one attribute with Percy that is a serious handicap
to his usefulness—his loyalties are first and foremost to himself. This
is exactly what leads him to slip off when he is supposed to be tailing
Harry in Little Whinging, allowing the Dementors to attack. It’s also
why he takes off at the first sign of trouble when Harry makes his final
departure from Privet Drive.
As a character, Mundungus also serves as a foil for more courageous
individuals. Throughout the works, Rowling casts bravery as one of
the highest virtues, and she distinguishes between secret agents ac-
cordingly. Pettigrew spies out of fear (“He—he was taking over ev-
erywhere! . . . .Wh—what was there to be gained by refusing him?”
[Prisoner 374])—and reaps his reward. When he attempts to directly

harm Harry, who once spared his life, his own hand turns against
him. In contrast, a spy on the side of right, willing to risk all to save
others and to protect the truth, can be “the bravest person [I’ve] ever
known” [Hallows epilogue]. This brings us, naturally, to the spy who
is so skilled, so smart, and so steely we are left guessing his loyalty
until a mere 100 pages remain—Severus Snape.
He acts—and perfectly—like someone not to be trusted, from the
first moment his eyes meet Harry’s across the Great Hall that first
night at Hogwarts. If the petty tyrannies, classroom abuse, posthu-
mous insults of James, and frankly sadistic detention assignments
weren’t enough, we learn in Harry’s fourth year that Snape was a
Death Eater—attracted to power and willing to use the Dark Arts
to get it—and that he had switched sides once before. When Snape
tells Dolores Umbridge that he has no further stocks of Veritaserum
to give to Harry and his co-conspirators, he offers poison in its place
(Phoenix 745).
It’s important that Harry’s first impression of Snape is so unfailingly
negative. Psychologists have found that when an individual makes
a judgment about another’s character, he’ll subconsciously interpret
that person’s future actions in the manner most commensurate with
his preexisting opinion. Decision theorists refer to this as the power
of prior beliefs—a measurable phenomenon that makes us thereafter
overestimate the reliability of information we hear that is consonant
with those beliefs. Simultaneously, we discount information that is
dissonant with them (Bayes). In fact, Snape is so good at playing his
part that even when he acts to protect Harry and Dumbledore, Harry
(and we) writes it off as part of his bluff. For instance, Snape alerts
the Order to Harry’s visions that Voldemort is holding Sirius hostage.
But since Harry learns on arrival at the Ministry that these visions
were merely bait to lure him there, we can interpret Snape’s actions
as assisting in setting that trap. The following year, Harry reports to
Arthur that Snape has offered to help Draco in his mission against
Dumbledore. Arthur suggests that Snape is merely pretending to help
Draco in order to learn what he’s up to. Not to be deterred from con-
tinued hatred of Snape, Harry snaps back, “Yeah, I thought you’d say
that. But how do we know?” (Prince 332).
The most valuable agents, as noted above, have the trust of both
sides. Like Aldrich Ames or Kim Philby, Snape is hightly trusted
by both sides, and plays his part so well that, time and time again,
Dumbledore must hear others tell him he is wrong to trust Snape.
In fact, this is one of the few points on which Harry and Draco are
in complete agreement, and one of the last things Dumbledore hears

is Draco’s assertion Snape is “a double agent, you stupid old man, he
isn’t working for you, you just think he is!” (Prince 588).
The other members of the Order trust Snape because Dumbledore
does, but it would be impossible for even someone as skilled as Severus
to switch sides without arousing suspicion on both sides. The Death
Eaters, too, are not entirely convinced of his loyalties, though they
are too afraid to say so. Even Bellatrix, who blindly agrees with the
Dark Lord on everything else, thinks he is unwise to trust Snape. But
because her distrust seems born of jealousy, and because Rowling has
painted her as highly unstable, it is easy for us to dismiss her suspicions
if we want to. In short, Snape is such an astute judge of human (or
wizard) character, and has such complete command of his mind and
heart, that he is able to maintain the trust of both Dumbledore and
Voldemort to almost the end—and therefore affect the entire out-
come of the war.
As a final note: Sometimes an agent’s bona fides with the other side
even outweigh other handicaps to their effectiveness. No amount of
ale, for instance, can outweigh the one great advantage that Hagrid
has for liaising with the giants: his giant blood. “Got a little job fer
me over the summer,” said Hagrid. “Secret, though. I’m not s’pposed
ter talk abou’ it, no, not even ter you lot . . .” (Goblet 719). Like Percy,
Hagrid can’t keep mum when he should. But no one else even stands
a chance with the giants.
Compartmentalization
Intelligence is only valuable so long as it gets to the people who need
to have it—and not to the people who don’t. Compartmentalization,
sometimes called “cellularization,” of information is therefore crucial
for intelligence to be useful. Compartmentalization, or disseminating
information only on a “need to know” basis, often includes keeping
even your allies in the dark. Harry is constantly frustrated by how
much information is withheld from him, no matter how often he is
told it is for his own good. He reads this as an underestimation of his
abilities, rather than an essential part of the larger strategic picture.
But he instinctively knows that a certain amount of compartmentali-
zation is crucial (or at least Hermione does!), as the organization of the
DA demonstrates. For his part, Voldemort uses cellularization amost
instinctively. We learn that only he knows who answers to him—and
this gives him “a strategic counterintelligence advantage and psycho-
logical control over even the Death Eaters” (Waters 378).
One crucial way intelligence organizations foster compartmentali-

zation is the use of safe houses, or secure locations, where operatives
can meet, coordinate, surveil, and conduct other necessary clandes-
tine activities without detection. All major modern intelligence agen-
cies make use of them, as have clandestine resistance movements.
In the wizarding world, we know of several, including Harry’s par-
ents’ house and, later, Shell Cottage, the Burrow, and Tonks’s par-
ents’ house. The order of the Phoenix, of course, is fortunate to have
No. 12 Grimmauld Place, and that security is worth any number of
Mrs. Black’s screams.
Wizarding safe houses, moreover, are protected using techniques
that would be very familiar to Muggle intelligence agents. Safe houses
are intended to blend into the background, “hiding in plain sight”.
If only Muggle safe houses could mimic the House of Black, and lit-
erally disappear between the adjacent houses! But we get the sense
that No. 12 would be usefully unremarkable if it were not invisible
(Phoenix 60).
In Harry’s world, safe houses (and information generally) can also
be protected with the Fidelius Charm, which makes a secret unbreak-
able unless the secret keeper discloses it. Pettigrew and Dumbledore
both serve as secret keepers—evidence of how important this role can
be, strategically. Muggles can approximate the Fidelius charm to a cer-
tain extent through the compartmentalization discussed earlier. Since
agents are given information on a “need to know” basis (the very words
Harry hates so much when Molly Weasley uses them [Phoenix X]), and
since no two agents have exactly the same pieces of information, if one
agent is captured, not all secret information is at risk. From the per-
spective of the agent, it requires great trust to have faith in your allies
without having complete information. When Harry says to Bill, or to
Lupin, or to Arthur, “You’re in the Order . . . you know Dumbledore
left us a mission. We’re not supposed to talk about it to anyone else”
(Hallows 484), he is asking them to have faith in Dumbledore’s judg-
ment, and faith in Harry’s own emerging maturity. The repeated tests
of Harry’s character over the past six years were preparing him request
this trust from his elders—and for them to grant it.
But while Muggles lack more colorful defenses like Unplottability
(although scientists are working on invisibility by bending light waves
around objects) or the Body-Bind curse (though there are high-tech
foams that can approximate it), it is, again, the very ordinariness of
Muggle safe houses, and even Muggle agents, that is crucial to keep-
ing them safe. In fact, another key character trait of intelligence agents
is patience. Any Muggle intelligence agent would likely smile with
recognition at the observation that “living at the headquarters of the

anti-Voldemort movement was not nearly as interesting or exciting as
[he] would have expected before he’d experienced it” (Phoenix X).
Intelligence Takes Intelligence

Snape’s allegiance is probably the single most important mystery in
our journey with Harry. Our understanding of both Voldemort’s
quest for power and the struggle to resist change radically depending
on where Snape’s loyalties lie. Ultimately, the awkward boy who be-
came the brilliant but dark professor holds the key to whether good
or evil will prevail.
So we learn from Rowling that being an effective undercover agent
is as much about patience and self-control as about daring or strength.
It is as much about resistance as about action. And it is about sacrificing
your reputation, your friends, your identity, and, if necessary, your life,
for what you believe in. In this sense, serving undercover is in reality
the bravest choice of all.
Chapter 8
Th e On ly On e H e Ev e r Fe a r e d :
Th e Nat u r e of Wa r
From the beginning of Harry’s journey, we have indications that the

tension between good and evil must end in war. So, too, it has been
with many conflicts in the Muggle world. War is the longest- and
most-studied subject in politics, dating straight back to Thucydides’s
History of the Pelopponesian War. Such attention is natural, since war
is the single most costly action a state can undertake, often gambling
its very survival.
Similarly, military service has commonly been a crucial requirement
for full membership in a nation, at least for men. Harry’s and Ron’s
desire to fight can be seen not only as an indication of their passion
for justice, but also as a sign that they have arrived as fully qualified
wizards, NEWTs or not. In this chapter we will consider the ways war
in Harry’s world approximates, and diverges from, war in our own.
For Rowling, politics is a direct consequence of the tension
between good and evil in the world, according to Iver Neumann,
and, therefore, inherently confilictual. As a result, the central ques-
tions of politics revolve around “a) how to separate good from evil.
The institution /being who carries out this task will be the linchpin
in politics, b) how to rally allies to the side of good, and how to
keep them, c) when and how to strike out against evil” (Neumann
in Nexon and Neumann 162). In this chapter, we will also consider
Rowling’s answers to these questions, since they are the ones that
most concern scholars of war.
Before delving into more generaliseable questions, it is impossible
to miss Rowling’s many referents to one particular conflict:WWII.
Earlier, we explored the ways that pureblood wizarding ideology
mirrors the racial ideology of the Third Reich. Rowling’s treatment

of war extends the metaphor in paying homage to the WWII. Elegant
plays on words such as “Durmstrang” and “Grindelwald” are both
Germanic in origin, and reference specific components of German
national mythology.1 Harry and Hermione assault the shrieking shack
on the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1994 (Schafer 2000:
178). Fudge’s appeasement and denial borrow more than a little
from Neville Chamberlain—surely Fudge’s refusal to face the truth
does as much damage to the wizarding world’s preparation as the
Munich Agreement did for Britain’s. Voldemort plans to first take
over Europe. And John Granger paints a convincing portrait of the
Weasley/Delacoeur wedding as a nod to the Anglo/Gallic alliance
(Granger 2008: 255).
Origins of War: Is It the System, or Is It Us?

International relations scholars disagree whether war is an inescap-
able product of the international system’s structure, or, instead, results
from the actions and interactions of states and individuals.
Anarchy. Realists, as we’ve discussed, focus on the way the anarchic
nature of the system makes self-help, paranoia, and, therefore, con-
flict, practically inevitable. One of the most famous twentieth-century
realists was Kenneth Waltz. In Man, the State, and War 1958), Waltz
argued that international anarchy explains not only the occurrence
of war, but the limits of cooperation between states. In part because
peace is a public good, in part because of the overarching need to gird
oneself against one’s enemies, states have incentives to cheat on peace
agreements and on arms limitations. Absent an international enforcer,
cooperation can never be guaranteed, and conflict is always a possi-
bility (Waltz 1959). Realists believe these insecurities are the basis of
most international conflict. Harry and his compatriots are often left to
fend for themselves in a world that is rapidly changing, unpredictable,
and in which the adults on whom they have relied seem increasingly
unable to protect them. The Ministry seems of limited efficacy even
when Harry first encounters it, and of course as Voldemort’s power
grows, the Ministry’s becomes increasingly hollow.
Specific aspects of the international system can make it even more
conflictual. One of the most important, at least for realists, is the bal-
ance of power —are there major powers or power blocs arrayed against
each other? Thucydides believed that when there was relative equality
of power (however measured) among major players, war was less likely.
This was because no state could confidently predict its likelihood of
Th e O n ly O n e H e E v e r F e a r e d 135
winning and thus would be cautious about initiating a war, if conflict

could be dealt with in less costly ways.
Others have argued, however, that it is conflicts between unevenly
matched pairs that are least likely to escalate to war, because the weaker
side has every reason to back down before things go that far. Bellatrix
acts on this logic in the battle at the Department of Mysteries, when
she tries to dishearten Harry by asserting, “I know spells of such
power that you, pathetic little boy, can never hope to compete” (Order
811). She hopes he will be intimidated into backing down rather than
recognizing his own power. These theorist disagree with Thucydides
and believe that it is when states are evenly matched that things get
more dangerous, for (due to incomplete information) both states may
believe they are the more powerful in the pair. Not only may this
make states reluctant to back down, but each state is tempted to shore
up its power against the other, believing itself at least close to prepon-
derance. Regardless of which state acts on this temptation first, the
other is likely to follow. This is because the state observing the initial
buildup has to assume the worst—that the other side is readying itself
for war. It is this assumption that drives Fudge to install Umbridge
at Hogwarts—his belief that Dumbledore is building an independent
force. While Fudge simply attempts to quash the students’ training,
in the international system, states attempt to match and outdo their
rivals’ arsenal. Voldemort is driven by just this logic, for, arrogant as
he is, he never feels he has quite enough power, and spends the vast
majority of both Phoenix and Hallows pursuing what he believes to be
superior weaponry. I heard a classic realist paranoia in Riddle’s words
at the very moment he believes he is about to win: “If it is not love that
will save you this time . . . you must believe you have magic I do not, or
else a weapon more powerful than mine?” (Hallows 739).
Still others think it’s most important how many major players
there are. In Harry’s world we see a classic bipolar system—one with
two major players. Waltz argues this number is likeliest to result in
relative balance of power —and thus stability. The most important
historical example from the twentieth century is of course the Cold
War between the United States and the USSR. Though locked in a
conflict of ideology, economics, intelligence, and proxy wars claim-
ing hundreds, the two superpowers never directly engaged each other
in a military exchange. In fact, the war between Voldemort and the
resistance also stays cold for some time, relying on clandestine attacks,
intelligence battles, and interference with economic interactions (such
as Ministry raids of Death Eater homes). But one could argue that this
supports the “imbalance” hypothesis. Voldemort has no incentive to
stage more open acts of war until restored to full corporeal form and
given time to amass both economic and military support. It is only
when he feels victory is assured that he moves openly against the offi-
cial organs of power.
Individuals. Especially in autocratic systems, a single individual
may instigate a series of events ultimately leading to war. We cannot
assume that individuals calculate their odds of winning in the same
way states do, since individuals’ rational calculations are constrained
by many factors: incomplete or incorrect information about their
opponents or their own capacity and domestic support, poor advising,
personal history and grievances, and physical or mental health, among
other things. Voldemort is not, however, irrational—as discussed ear-
lier, he is a shrewd strategician. He ultimately only lacks one piece of
information—the nature of the bond between Harry and himself. But
it is this that proves to be his undoing.2
Mutual Evolution of
Warfare and Technology
War has changed dramatically over time in both tactics and strategy.
While wars generally have become more lethal, fewer combatants
die off the battlefield than was once the case. While technological
“advances” allow us to kill people far more efficiently now than ever
before, so also developments in medical technology allow us to save
wounded who a hundred years ago would have perished.
The historian Jared Diamond (1997) has argued that in fact war and
conquest more generally have been the two most important factors
driving technological innovation in human history. To illustrate this
evolution, we can consider what have been described as the successive
generations of Muggle warfare. Analysts refer to four generations of
warfare, defined by mutual evolution in technology and strategy. The
first, the generation of massed manpower, persisted from the begin-
ning of organized human conflict to the invention of firearms. The
second generation, the era of massed firepower, ended only when the
introduction of the tank allowed for new strategies of maneuver. Now
front lines no longer had to face hardened front lines, but could, with
the help of tanks, break through to vulnerable support forces in the
rear. All three generations above envision states as the main parties
to war. However, technologies developed over the last few decades
have allowed nonstate actors, under certain conditions, to challenge
nation-states that would heretofore have been too powerful for such
a challenge to be considered. Because of this “mismatch” between
adversaries, analysts have dubbed the new era as the era of asymmetri-
cal warfare. It is notable that under this definition, acts of terror can
be classified as acts of war. We discussed terror at length in Chapter 8.
But wizards have always had technologies of asymmetrical warfare—
and fortunately for us this works to the advantage of the order and the
DA as well as the Death Eaters.
Ways out of the Realist Dilemma

Critics of realism contend that states are not ineluctably drawn toward
paranoia and conflict, and that there are ways states can cooperate
despite anarchy. Idealism contends that if individuals (in our own spe-
cies and others) can work together for common goals, states can too.
They believe that since individuals share common goals, they also have
a natural interest in promoting justice, as well as mechanisms that
enable cooperation. (These most importantly include international
laws like the International Statute of Secrecy, and governance bodies
such as the International Confederation of Wizards, which can hold
states accountable to universally-agreed norms, and punish aggressive
or unjust behavior.) In fact, idealists believe justice is as important as
power in guiding the behavior of states and individuals alike. Thus,
while Dumbledore’s insights go beyond those of idealism, his leader-
ship style is consistent with an idealist approach, and draws on dis-
tinctly idealist precepts. When he urges students to resist Voldemort’s
attempts to sow enmity, when he supports not only international but
interspecies cooperation, he is acting in the finest traditions of ideal-
ists like Immanuel Kant, Enlightenment thinker and early idealist (see
especially Perpetual Peace).
Kant argued that the key to international peace is democracy, par-
ticularly a profusion of democratic nations. There were at least two
reasons he believed democracy led to peace. First, in democracies,
groups with different interests must find ways to compromise. Once
established, this norm of compromise extends to states’ external rela-
tions as well—at least when they deal with other democracies, who
abide by similar norms. Second, war is costly, and most people will
choose to settle their differences in less costly ways if possible, only
turning to war as a last resort. In democracies, the will of the people
to avoid war will constrain leaders’ ability to engage in unnecessary or
ill-advised wars.
But this doesn’t mean that idealists are a bunch of peaceniks.
Idealism also explains why Dumbledore and other members of the
Order are quite willing to go to war against the Dark forces. They
do not expect the same norms of justice and compromise to guide

Voldemort’s and his forces’ behavior, and know that if he wins he will
eradicate the norms of cooperation and justice they have worked to
establish.
Choices in Waging War

Both Muggles and wizards are well advised to follow some basic rules
of thumb in waging war—having achievable goals, being certain these
are agreed upon up and down both the military and civilian chains of
command, and maintaining clear communication channels. But other
choices are more complex.
Alliances. Alliances can be crucial because of the emphasis that real-
ism places on balance of power. But exactly how this works has been
the subject of great debate. Levy (1981) finds that there is a strong
correlation between the formation of alliances by major powers and
the outbreak of war involving those powers within five years. This sug-
gests that states foresee conflict on the horizon and attempt to shore
up and extend their power through alliances. It also suggests, how-
ever, that these actions do not forestall war—though they may give
states marginal advantages once war begins. While Muggle diplomats
often decry the difficulty of forming alliances, their challenge is likely
nothing to that of the Office of International Magical Cooperation.
What are ideological differences compared with liaising with entirely
different kinds of magical creatures?
As Hermione keeps reminding us, “About You-Know-Who. . . . ‘His
gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only
by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust’ ” (Order
223). But Voldemort has some of his work done for him by the vast
communications and value differences among types of magical crea-
tures. The difficulties of negotiating with the dim but violent giants
is written in blood and bruises across Hagrid’s face. And less dramatic
barriers might be no less difficult to overcome—imagine trying to
negotiate with centaurs! Even if they could be convinced they had a
stake in a wizard conflict, would the negotiators be able to work out
a detailed agreement—or be sure both sides understood it the same
way? Negotiating with such a partner also requires that you try to see
an agreement the way that they would, too, so as to avoid agreeing to
something that might be very much not in your interest. Therefore,
Harry, Ron, and Hermione are very careful in designing their com-
pact with Griphook the goblin, being careful not to lie while being
deliberately misleading. “We’ll tell him he can have the sword after
he’s helped us get into that vault,” Harry says. “But we’ll be careful
to avoid telling him exactly when he can have it” (Hallows 508). This
kind of vagueness is often a useful tool in Muggle negotiations.
Regardless of their nature, it is difficult to understand why any
species would ally themselves with Voldemort. One of his most pow-
erful tools is the promise of better treatment than some species have
received in the past. Though wizards may disagree, the goblin version
of history is that they have been mightily mistreated and deceived by
wizards, including through denial of wand use and misappropriation
of goblin-made items. Werewolves, too, have suffered undue oppres-
sion, such as unequal access to educational and employment oppor-
tunities. Is it any wonder there’s a certain appeal to Voldemort’s call,
when he includes a werewolf in his inner circle?
Finally sometimes a common threat compels an unlikely alliance,
and Neumann observes that the “alliances wizards make are fluid”
(Neumann in Nexon and Neumann 162). Just as Winston Churchill
claimed that “[i]f Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favour-
able reference to the devil in the House of Commons,” Firenze takes
a more reasonable stance than most of his herd when he declares “I set
myself against what is lurking in this forest, Bane, yes, with humans
alongside me if I must’ ” (Stone 257). Furthermore, many odd allies
rally to the aid of Hogwarts during the final siege, including Percy
Weasley, Kreacher the House-Elf, the centaurs, and some members of
Slytherin.
Conventional and Unconventional Warfare. A second set of choices
faces military leaders once war has broken out. One of the most impor-
tant of these is between conventional and unconventional warfare.
Conventional warfare refers to use of force by officially designated
(uniformed) military units against other officially designated military
units or military targets. Unconventional warfare includes intelligence
operations, psychological warfare, sabotage, and other clandestine
operations, as well as use of weapons of mass destruction (which are
not usually included in the definition of conventional warfare, for rea-
sons beyond the scope of this chapter). Intelligence operations are
discussed in detail in Chapter 7, but it is worth noting again that intel-
ligence is often the most powerful weapon in a military’s arsenal.
Unconventional warfare has been and continues to be highly con-
troversial, in part because it is often seen as violating basic principles
and laws of war. But both sides of the wizarding wars appear per-
fectly willing to use unconventional warfare when necessary.Snape,
for instance, besides being a double agent par excellence, also acts in at
least one instance as a classic agent provocateur -- an agent who goads
his target to act in a desired way, which will then be used as an excuse
to eliminate or prosecute the target. When he repeatedly taunts Sirius
about remaining safely hidden while the rest of the Order were off
fighting, he might have been merely making a jab at an old rival. But
Snape’s sniping was also, in Harry’s mind, “a powerful factor in Sirius
rushing off to the Ministry the night that he had died” (Prince 161).
Voldemort is also highly skilled in the art of psychological warfare.
For instance, while Snape might have set him up, it is Voldemort who
lures Harry to come to the Ministry the night Sirius dies convinc-
ing him Sirius is being held hostage. Threatening targets’ families is
a common tactic of Muggle interrogators as well, as testimony from
Guantanamo Bay unfortunately suggests. In fact we know explicitly
that it is Sirius’s close relationship to Harry that makes him a tar-
get. As Dumbledore explains, it was crucial that Harry was “coming
to regard Sirius as a mixture of father and brother. Voldemort knew
already, of course, that Sirius was in the Order, that you knew where
he was—but Kreacher’s information made him realize that the one
person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black”
(Order 831).
Misdirection is of course used by the Order as well. Kingsley is in
a good position to sew false leads about Sirius when he is placed in
charge of his manhunt. But Muggles are capable of powerful magic
of their own when necessary. Allied forces enlisted some of the great-
est special effects experts in World War II to create a very particular
kind of transfiguration. These sorcerers created false beachheads with
lights attached to small boats in the water at night, disguised Allied
headquarters as debris piles, and successfully misled Hitler’s forces
about the time and place of the turning point of the war: the invasion
of Normandy, as discussed elsewhere.
Finally, like an expert torturer, Voldemort exhibits an eerie skill for
discerning and destroying or perverting the things closest to the hearts
of his foes, attempting to turn the Sorting Hat into an instrument of
torture, and an institution of education into a school for assassins.
Predicting Outcomes
While scholars have always been obsessed with learning why wars
break out, even more important for decision makers is understand-
ing who wins, and why. After all, if this could be predicted perfectly,
would we not actually avoid war altogether? Put another way, if states’
leaders had a perfect understanding of what leads to victory in war,
and the characteristics of their own and rival states’, they would not
likely choose war over other means to settle disputes. They would
simply know which side would win, and the other side would concede.
Since they will have to do so anyway if they lose a war, why not just do
so without fighting the war in the first place?
So what predicts victory? Some parts of the equation are pretty easy
to define: What are the relative sizes of the two militaries? Who has
the best infrastructure? What is the relative size and sophistication of
the two arsenals? But several other things contribute to victory and
are far harder to measure.
First of all, morale and loyalty matter. More autocratic states may
be able to mobilize faster, but when war drags on, democratic states
benefit from having a fighting force that (a) has joined the military
by choice, (b) is fighting a war chosen by leaders who are in turn
chosen by the people and (c) is fighting for a nation in which it feels it
has some stake. (Democracies are, however, more sensitive to casual-
ties than autocracies are, something that can lead to public opinion
turning against wars that go on too long, or become bloodier than
expected.)
This brings us to another interesting difference between wizard
and Muggle wars. In our world, wars are conflicts between groups,
rather than individuals. In modern history, wars are most commonly
fought between nation-states. But nation-states are largely missing
from the wizard war. Since nationalism has been one of the loyal-
ties most responsible for conflict in the Muggle world, why is it so
absent in Harry’s? Folker and Folker argue that individual capability
and power of wizards means they rely less on collective power struc-
tures (like nations) than do Muggles (Folker and Folker in Nexon and
Neumann 103). I would add that the separation of wizard legal struc-
tures from Muggle ones (discussed in Chapter 2) would also dimin-
ish the importance of the nation as a source of identity. Importantly,
the fact that national identity is of differential importance for differ-
ent people demonstrates that the strength of group affiliation is very
much socially constructed—whether that group is one’s nation, or
one’s Blood Status.
The twin issues of loyalty and morale in combat effectiveness are
clearly crucial in wizarding wars as well. Bellatrix, for one, knows
this, and repeatedly declares “her continuing allegiance to Lord
Voldemort, her pride that she had tried to find him after his downfall
and her conviction that she would one day be rewarded for her loy-
alty” (Order 114). But, as we discussed in Chapter 2, she is the excep-
tion. Voldemort has few followers who obey him out of loyalty rather
than fear. This means that his army suffers from the same weakness
as any other autocrats’: when the leader shows signs of weakness, the
troops have little incentive to perservere. It also means that Voldemort
rarely trusts anyone. Because he believes his Horcruxes will save him,
he worries little about the loyalty of others, and therefore develops no
meaningful bond with any of his followers.
Democracy and autocracy have consequences for military doctrine
as well. All militaries possess a relatively strict chain of command. In
democratic states this frees up the top of the command and control
structure to focus on big-picture strategic decisions, knowing that
tactical decisions and battlefield direction can be handled by subordi-
nates. This trust in the lower levels of the command structure increases
morale throughout. But in an autocracy, dictatorial leadership leads to
a greater need to micromanage. If you have assumed power by force,
you will assume you must hold on to it by force as well. So, like all
tyrants, Voldemort micromanages. His inner dialogue would not be
out of character for a Hitler or a Kim Jong Il. “It had been a grave
mistake to trust Bellatrix and Malfoy: Didn’t their stupidity and care-
lessness prove how unwise it was ever to trust?” (Hallows 551).
Note the tension here between rule through loyalty and shared
principles, and rule through fear. This is another consequence of the
idealist/realist dichotomy. Realists believe in rule through power,
and power alone, if necessary. There is little to be gained by ruling
through principle, as power will ultimately win out. Hence, Pettigrew
defends betraying the Potters by arguing that there was “nothing to
be gained by resisting” (Prisoner 375). Sirius turns on him with such
anger because Peter is utterly ignorant of loyalty and friendship, for
which Lupin and Sirius have sacrificed so dearly.
“What was there to be gained by fighting the most evil wizard who
has ever existed?” said Black, with a terrible fury in his face. “Only
innocent lives, Peter!”
“You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have killed me,
Sirius!”
“THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black. “DIED
R ATHER THAN BETR AY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD
HAVE DONE FOR YOU!” (Prisoner 375).
Loyalty to this kind of cause, its adherents would argue, should take
precedence over even loyalty to friends and family. It is in the Weasley
family that we see these competing loyalties most poignantly tested.
After Mr. Weasley is attacked by the snake in Harry’s fifth year, Sirius
forbids Fred and George to go to the hospital too quickly lest it become
clear that they have sources of information which, if revealed, would
jeopardize the Order’s intelligence channels:
“We don’t care about the dumb Order!” shouted Fred.

“It’s our dad dying we’re talking about!” yelled George.
“Your father knew what he was getting into, and he won’t thank you
for messing things up for the Order!” said Sirius angrily in his turn.
“This is how it is—this is why you’re not in the Order—you don’t
understand—there are things worth dying for!” (Order 477)
That this is indeed true is something Hermione and Harry have to

learn throughout the course of their journey, though it may come
more easily because they lack family in the magical world. Their evo-
lution to this way of thinking is demonstrated in their exchange with
Aberforth, when they return for the final standoff with Voldemort:
“Sometimes you’ve got to think about more than your own safety!
Sometimes you’ve got to think about the greater good! This is war!”
(Hallows 568).
Voldemort’s reliance on fear also demonstrates the impact of indi-
vidual leadership style. Interestingly, Rowling doesn’t cast Dumbledore
as a perfect leader in contrast to Riddle. He, too, micromanages to a
certain extent, keeping things close to his chest that might best be
shared with his lieutenants, and that would imbue them—at least in
Harry’s case—with a greater sense of being trusted and empowered.
And Dumbledore knows that his time is limited. But he never shares
either the reasons for his trust in Snape, nor details about the last war
that might be useful for strategic planning. While Harry does finally
come to the decision that he must trust Albus based on faith alone,
Dumbledore’s silence costs him years of questioning and distrust, not
only of Snape and Dumbledore, but of himself as well.
Binding War
While the phrase “law of war” may appear an oxymoron, it is the old-
est and best developed area of international law. Since war is the most
costly action a state can take, the desire to mitigate its worst effects is
an ancient and consistent one. There are both customary and formal
laws of war. The former refer to those understandings and principles
so widely accepted that states are assumed to be bound by them even
in the absence of formal laws. Many formal laws, such as the Geneva
Conventions, are built to codify and extend just such informal norms.
More formal laws such as these are explicitly laid down in treaties, as
well as in emergent international case law.
There are two substantive areas of war law: those delineating just
reasons for the initiation of war (in Latin, jus ad bellum) and those
pertaining to just conduct in war (jus in bello). Accepted principles
of jus ad bellum include fighting in self-defense, fighting war as a last
resort, and entering a war as a third party to bring about the peace.
Clearly, the anti-Voldemort forces are fighting a just war.
Jus in bello includes several principles. First, proportionality includes
using only reasonably necessary force to achieve an objective. Second,
certain kinds of targets are never considered legitimate military objec-
tives unless they have been repurposed. These include hospitals, reli-
gious institutions, educational institutions, and cultural icons. Third,
combattants should clearly distinguish themselves from noncomba-
tants through use of a uniform or other distinguishing marks. This
is important in part because noncombatants are neither to be tar-
geted, nor used as human shields. Fifth, particular sorts of humane
treatment are specified for “protected persons.” These include the
wounded, sick, shipwrecked, all forms of prisoners of war (POWs),
and civilians. They are to be provided with adequate food, water, shel-
ter, medical care, and spiritual succor. Formal laws of war such as
the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions specify these
guidelines in detail, and constrain the use of particular categories of
weapons (including biological and chemical). For instance, a popular
tactic during World War II was firebombing, most famously executed
on Dresden and Tokyo. This clearly violates the principles of jus in
bello because it does not allow for discrimination between military and
civilian targets. There is, however, no direct analogy in Harry’s world,
since there is no standing wizard military (though Aurors and Death
Eaters are both semianalogous).
While we have no insights into the formal laws of war in the wizard-
ing world, some similar customary laws seem to apply. For instance,
when Aberforth asks “It never occurred to any of you to keep a few
Slytherins hostage? There are kids of Death Eaters you’ve just sent to
safety. Wouldn’t it have been a bit smarter to keep ‘em here?” (Hallows
622), Harry objects because this would have amounted to making
them into human shields. Similarly, rather than having the house-elves
fight for them, Ron says: “I mean we should tell them to get out. We
don’t want any more Dobbies, do we? We can’t order them to die for
us” (Hallows 625).
Ending War and Keeping Peace

The ostensible goal of all studies of war are to prevent, limit, or miti-
gate the effects of the next one. Why, then, have they been so inef-
fective? Once again different schools of thought lead us to different
answers. Realists will claim, of course, that there is no way out of
the spiral of insecurity that states find themselves in under anarchy.
Idealists will claim that it is a failure of strong enough institutions
and rules (regimes) of cooperation. But often, the reasons are more
proximate—the fallout from one war sets the stage for the next.
This has happened time and time again—the Mexican-American
War immediately precipitated the American Civil War, and the settle-
ment of World War II led directly to the Cold War between the United
States and the USSR. But probably the most famous example is the
way the Treaty of Versailles following World War I created an impov-
erished and humiliated Germany that was eventually desperate enough
to be receptive to Hitler’s demented plans for national rebirth. The
reparations imposed on Germany after World War I, coupled with the
decimation of much of its manufacturing and agricultural infrastruc-
ture, led to a debt crisis and runaway inflation. Demoralized Germans
were ultimately willing to believe that the nation was being denied its
rightful place among world powers—even though Hitler’s claims were
based on a tottering pile of falsehoods, including an entirely mythic
version of German history.
It is not only Muggles who fail to see the way the settlement of one
war sows the seeds of the next. Firenze claims that “Wizard-kind is liv-
ing through nothing more than a brief calm between two wars. Mars,
bringer of battle, shines brightly above us, suggesting that the fight
must break out again soon” (Order 603). Voldemort, like Germany,
was not defeated after the first war, but left just wounded enough—
and just powerful enough—to be the ultimate danger.
Chapter 9
Gru n n i ngs a n d G a l l eons :

M at e r i a l ism i n t h e Wi z a r di ng a n d
Mug gl e Wor l ds
“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of Number Four, Privet Drive, were happy
to say they were quite normal, thank you very much.”
(Stone, 1)
Can any of us forget the moment we met Harry? We enter the

extraordinary world of magic through the relentless banality the
Dursleys have cultivated in Privet Drive. Their imagined normalcy is
built on constant comparison to others and paralyzing fear of differ-
ence. Rowling has said the first sentence of the series, above, expresses
her opinion of people who “glorify the norm” (quoted in Nel 47).
The only way the Dursleys’ want to be distinguished is by their
consumption. Consumption is safe, since it allows them to measure
personal value by a set of standards that is continually reaffirmed by
the advertising industry. As Nel says, “if the Dursleys represent the
norm, they illustrate the degree to which bourgeois values depend
upon commodity culture” (47–48). Rowling invites us to consider
the meaning of wealth by creating in the Dursleys a caricature of the
classic materialist, petit-bourgeois family, in which money is seen as a
direct measure of personal merit, and thus becomes the primary goal
for which the family strives. She then introduces us to a somewhat
more fluid relationship between money and character in the wizard-
ing world, inviting us to consider our own relationship to material
wealth.
Dursleys: Petit-Bourgeois Caricature

When we first encounter the Dursleys, they are indeed unlikeable
(Jack Zipes calls them “materialist philistines” [176]), but they are not
unfamiliar. Slyly, the gate into Harry’s world is disguised as a sterile
suburb that is—by design—much like any other. Whether we are in
Britain, America, or India, there is likely a prefab, anonymous hamlet
that leaps to mind to fill the role of Little Whinging. The very name
“Privet Drive” connotes the neatness of suburban privet hedges (and
privies!).The Dursleys are not unlike many a middle-class suburban
family: upwardly-aspirant, fearful of threats to the social order they
have devoted their lives to climbing, concerned with their gains rela-
tive to their neighbors, and consumed with, well, consumption.
The middle class in Western industrialized states has its origins in
the ranks of artisans and freeholders that emerged during the Middle
Ages, around the same time there was a dramatic population shift
toward cities. The bourgeoisie(french: city-dweller) literally comprised
a new “middle class” between the landed nobility and the peasantry,
the two main societal divisions in feudal polities.
The rise of a bourgeoisie, the development of its economic power
and attendant claims on the old aristocracy, led to opportunities for
political participation by a growing proportion of society. The bour-
geoisie was a driving force in the English, French, and American revo-
lutions and in the spread of Enlightenment principles on which they
were based. These included a renunciation of the divine right of kings,
a recognition of the equal intellectual potential of all men, a ques-
tioning of religious dogma, and an increased development of rules of
scientific enquiry and empiricism.
However, the bourgeoisie were also often the target of derision by
the older class of landed nobility. They were ridiculed as crassly con-
cerned with money (since they were often quite new to it, or nou-
veau riche) and scandalously uncultured. (One of the most scathing
send-ups of the eighteenth-century French bourgeoisie can be found
in Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, which lampoons a newly rich
merchant who is trying to become cultured.) Vernon Dursley is thus
a modern incarnation of a very familiar figure produced by critics of
certain parts of the bourgeoisie.
Consumption and Success. As I suggest above, one of the components
of bourgeois culture that has been most lampooned is consumerism,
or the recasting of measures of success in society primarily in terms of
acquisition of material goods. American culture has been particularly
criticized on these grounds; that pursuit of material goods has replaced
Grunnings a nd Ga l l eons 149
pursuit of philosophical, intellectual, spiritual, social, and moral forms

of achievement (see, for instance, the arguments of Thorsten Veblen
[1899]). Briefly, Veblen, Max Weber, and others, particularly in the
Marxist tradition, have argued that the mass production of industrial
goods presupposes mass consumption. After markets are saturated, a
certain amount of additional consumption will need to be generated
by planned obsolescence, innovation, or raising of the standards of
material wealth that signal a person has “made it” in society. It is very
clear that those standards are the ones that are most important to
the Dursleys. In one of the most poignant examples, as Harry is con-
templating the arrival of his twelfth birthday, he is surprised to hear
Vernon announce that it is a very important day. For a split second
he thinks the Dursleys have, for once, remembered his birthday. He
soon realizes, however, that “ Of course . . . Uncle Vernon was talk-
ing about the stupid dinner party. He’d been talking of nothing else
for two weeks. Some rich builder and his wife were coming to din-
ner and Uncle Vernon was hoping to get a huge order from him”
(Chamber 5).
We know the Dursleys basically consider only two things to com-
prise a person’s worth: their material acquisitions and their conformity
to what the Dursleys consider to be normal standards. John Granger
calls them the “crassest materialists and status seeking conformists in
recent literature” (Granger 2007: 178). Vernon “tended to judge other
men by how big and expensive their cars were” (Goblet 41) and puts
on his best suit not as “a gesture of welcome,” but “because Uncle
Vernon wanted to look impressive and intimidating” (Goblet 40).
Success is measured in material gains. Vernon is content in his job
and enjoys certain parts of it quite a lot, but not once does he express
enthusiasm over drills. When a big deal appears on the horizon, he
is excited not because he will have achieved some new prestige in the
world of drill sales, but because “we’ll be shopping for a vacation home
in Majorca this time tomorrow” (Chamber 7).
Two characters are particularly obvious symbols of superfluous
consumption: Dudley, and Vernon’s sister Marge (who we meet just
before Harry’s third year, and then never see again—presumably she
wishes to avoid another uplifting experience). Besides his massive
appetite for things, Dudley has a massive appetite, generally. He goes
from looking like a “large pink beachball” as a baby to “a pig in a
wig” by the time Harry is 11—a resemblance that is certainly not lost
on Hagrid. Marge, puffed up with food, wine, and self-importance,
is soon literally inflated and carried away after she raises Harry’s ire.
(We might also not be surprised that Marge is a dog breeder—in the
United States, at least, many are stereotypically obsessed with upper-

class affectations of “good breeding” while themselves being unedu-
cated and anti-intellectual.)
Consumption and Conformity. When one views material wealth
as the measure of others’ value or one’s own success, it is essential
to know how one measures up against the neighbors. (Some readers
may be familiar with the delightful British TV incarnation of this
suburban preoccupation, charmingly titled Keeping Up Appearances.)
Therefore, Petunia is never happier than when she is gossiping, and
a typical dinner conversation revolves around the latest doings of the
neighbors .
In this context, it is important to note that money is not only
important in its own right, but because it buys access to the club of
the “normal.” None of the Dursleys appear to necessarily value mate-
rial things for their intrinsic value. Vernon doesn’t obsessively talk
about the new car to Petunia or to a gearhead friend in the garage, but
rather takes the family “out into the front garden to admire [his] new
company car (in very loud voices, so that the rest of the street would
notice it too)” (Prisoner 3). The first year we meet him, Dudley wants
a new racing bike even though he hates exercise, so we can see that
it is merely a status symbol, not a mode of transportation. Looking
with Harry around the shelves of Dudley’s second bedroom, we see
that his possessions only hold his interest while they are novel or use-
ful for intimidating other children; his utter lack of care for his things
demonstrates they are merely status symbols. The parrot is traded for
the air rifle, which is quickly sat on; the TV is destroyed in a tantrum,
and toys are thrown out the window in rage.
Conversely, Harry’s arrival is not unwelcome in its own right (clearly
the Dursleys have the capacity to love profoundly difficult young men)
but because he violates the normal identity they have worked so hard to
build up—because he is “as un-Dursleyish as it was possible to be.”1
Material Capital and Social Capital. To critics of consumerism and
bourgeois culture, the main problem is not the enjoyment of material
comforts, but the substitution of material goods for social good.
The term “social capital” is used by social theorists (including
Pierre Bourdieu in social theory, and Robert Salisbury and Robert
Putnam in political science) to mean slightly different things, but all
basically comprising the network of social relations, the underlying
mutual trust on which they rest, and their eventual consolidation
and institutionalization, which contribute to resilient, democratic,
and ultimately functional societies. These can take the form of, for
instance, voluntary associations, religious institutions, or simply the
general mutual obligations assumed in some (usually smaller, more

traditional) communities.
The fear of many critics of consumerism, then, is that a consumer
culture eventually causes people to replace the pursuit of social capi-
tal with the pursuit of material capital—a far more atomistic (indi-
vidualistic, isolated) way of living. Democratic theorists see this as
undermining to the political participation on which robust democracy
depends.
The comfort,for the Dursleys, is that having material hallmarks
for success and normalcy creates clear, unambiguous goals. No tough
choices are required, nor is the depth of character they build. It’s
important to note, too, that we have an excellent analogue in the mag-
ical world—Lockhart, who has no innate skills (save memory charms)
and cares only about one measure of success: fame—with which, of
course, comes material security.
Wizard Capital
The role of money, and its reliability as a hallmark of success, seems
more fluid in the wizarding world. John Granger has called the mes-
sage of the Potter books a “counterspell to the materialism of our
times” (Granger 2008:1).
While it might exist, we see little evidence of a coherent bourgeois
class in the wizarding world. While material status symbols exist, they
seem to be sought less for their symbolic value than for their instru-
mental value. Put another way, commodities are not fetishized in and
of themselves.
Certainly classes exist, however. Measured by material wealth, we
can define some broad categories in the wizarding community.
● Wealthy “old money” families, disproportionately pureblood, and usually

portrayed as corrupt, vain, or downright evil (Malfoys, Blacks, Crabbes,
Goyles).
● Apparently middle-class civil servants and small business people, some
but not all purebloods, which include all sorts of people but few that are
wholly corrupt (Weasleys, Lovegoods, Diggorys). (While the Weasleys are
teased for being poor, Mr. Weasley’s profession, and money elsewhere in
the family, arguably makes them at least lower middle class).
Only one major character is clearly working class: Hagrid.

There are, of course, also economically marginal/criminal charac-
ters such as Mundungus. Effectively, though, I would argue these
are token characters who cannot be said to constitute a class unto

themselves.
If economists or sociologists were to undertake a brief survey of
the wizarding world, they would probably conclude that there is a
bimodal distribution of incomes, but with the great majority of wiz-
ards living a basically middle-class lifestyle as defined by profession,
lifestyle, and apparent disposable income. Mysteriously, we find no
portion of the Ministry that deals with taxes, labor or pension issues,
housing, or education (Stouffer 194). Given that government needs
revenue, and that there will always be inequalities in income distribu-
tion, these lacunae seem rather puzzling.
For Rowling, money and material goods are not the primary com-
ponents of success and happiness. Most obviously, the Weasleys seem
to Harry to have a dream family, and the Burrow appears to be a very
heaven. Social capital is alive and well in wizarding society.
Of course, even here, some things are measured in galleons and
gold. In particular, wealth appears to matter under two conditions:
when there are discrepancies between economic and social status
(the Weasleys are relatively well connected, but poor) and when the
disparity between families is great (as between the Malfoys and the
Weasleys).
Before we conclude that the Weasley’s poverty makes them pariahs,
however, we should reflect that nearly every instance of ridicule is
initiated by one of the Malfoys. While clearly the Weasleys struggle to
make ends meet, Arthur and Percy both hold respected positions in
the Ministry, and Bill and Charlie both have what appear to be pres-
tigious positions. Further, we never hear discussion of other students’
wealth. It seems possible that the Malfoys actually dislike the Weasleys
for their “blood-traitor” status, not their poverty. Poverty is, however,
so easy to target that they cannot help themselves.
The Roles of Money. We can draw at least a few conclusions about
the role of wealth in the magical world. First, while wizarding society
appears less consumerist than (the Dursley’s version of) the Muggle
world, wizards do get excited about the latest gadget. What could
capture Harry’s imagination like the Nimbus 2000? Is there any place
more magical to a first time Hogsmeade visitor than Honeydukes?
How therapeutic in a time of fear must a visit to Weasley’s Wizard
Wheezes be? Even mundane cleaning products promise to change
their purchaser’s lives, just they do in our world. “The Bluebottle:
A Broom for All the Family—safe, reliable, and with Built-in Anti-
Burglar Buzzer . . . Mrs. Skower’s All-Purpose Magical Mess Remover:
No Pain, No Stain!” (Goblet 96–97). And we can’t forget Slughorn’s
love of little luxuries. “[T]here were soft chairs and footstools, drinks
and books, boxes of chocolates and plump cushions.” (Prince 67).
But even Horace seems to value power and influence more than his
candied pineapple.
Second, wealth clearly does serves as a route to political and social
influence, just as it does in our world. It’s no coincidence that the
average yearly income of Congressional candidates places them
squarely in the top 1 percent. People with more money have more
connections, more time, and more flexibility. In Harry’s world,
while there are no elections, money buys a great deal for people like
Lucius. Arthur tells us, “Malfoy’s been giving generously to all sorts
of things for years . . . Gets him in with the right people . . . then he can
ask favors . . . delay laws he doesn’t want passed . . . Oh, he’s very well
connected, Lucius Malfoy” (Phoenix 155). And we don’t have to take
Arthur’s word for it. Fudge himself tells us as much at the Quidditch
World Cup: “Lucius has just given a very generous contribution to St.
Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries . . . He’s here as
my guest” (Goblet 101). Later the same year Fudge dismisses Harry’s
accusations about Lucius by citing Malfoy’s generosity—a complete
nonsequitur, except in a society where money buys power, access, and
immunity (Waters 357). Malfoy has undue influence even with the
Committee for the Disposal of Magical Creatures, at least accord-
ing to Hagrid, who says that the defense Hermione has prepared for
Buckbeak “won’t make no diff’rence . . . Them Disposal devils, they’re
all in Lucius Malfoy’s pocket! Scared o’ him!” (Prisoner 219).
A secondary problem with this kind of corruption is that it tends
to be self-sustaining. The younger we learn lessons about money and
power, the more deeply entrenched those beliefs are. (Transparency
International, for instance, has documented this phenomena in the
former Soviet republics, where corrupt practices have been both highly
destructive and highly persistent.) So, for instance, we see that Draco
is learning at his father’s heel, buying his way both into the Quidditch
team and out of Umbridge’s suspensions:
Umbridge gave the Slytherin Quidditch team permission to continue play-

ing straightaway . . . Well, it was pretty much automatic, I mean, she knows
my father really well, he’s always popping in and out of the Ministry . . . It’ll
be interesting to see whether Gryffindor are allowed to keep playing, won’t
it? . . . if it’s a question of influence with the Ministry, I don’t think they’ve got
much chance. (Phoenix 361)
Draco’s assumption that wealth guarantees success also extends to aca-

demic endeavors. “Of course, it’s not what you know,” he was heard
to tell Crabbe and Goyle loudly outside Potions a few days before the
exams were to start, “It’s who you know. Now, Father’s been friendly
with the head of the Wizarding Examinations Authority for years—
old Griselda Marchbanks—we’ve had her round for dinner and every-
thing” (Phoenix 707).
Furthermore, Lucius Malfoy is no exception. In No. 12, Grimmauld
Place, the team finds “an Order of Merlin, First Class, that had been
awarded to Sirius’s grandfather for ‘Services to the Ministry.’ ‘It
means he gave them a load of gold,’ ” said Sirius contemptuously . . .”
(Phoenix 117). Even a common Muggle-baiter like Willy Widdershins
can buy exceptions to the rules. “ ‘[D]on’t ask me how, but he actually
got off on the toilet charge,’ ” said Mr. Weasley grimly. “ ‘I can only
suppose gold changed hands’ ” (Phoenix 490).
In each of these cases, however, money clearly acts very much as a
payoff. It does not, notably, determine the respect or love that an indi-
vidual is accorded—except by Malfoy. Malfoy feeds Ron’s insecurities
at every opportunity, teasing Ron about everything from his house
to his broom. “Weasley, you couldn’t afford half the handle . . . I sup-
pose you and your brothers have to save up twig by twig” (Stone 165).
He patently dismisses Lupin before ever meeting him, on the basis of
his tatty appearance. “ ‘Look at the state of his robes,’ Malfoy would
say in a loud whisper as Professor Lupin passed. ‘He dresses like our
old house-elf’ ” (Prisoner 141). Note that this is another example of
“blaming the victim,” discussed in Chapter 3—it is the discrimination
against werewolves that makes it difficult for Lupin to find gainful
employment, rather than any fault of his own.
But again, wizarding society generally does not seem to equate per-
sonal worth with net worth. As in the Muggle world, too much con-
spicuous consumption can even backfire when it generates resentment
or is seen as pretentious or crass. Remember that the Death Eaters
approaching Malfoy Manor at the outset of Hallows, frightened as
they are, still find comic relief in Lucius’s white peacocks (Hallows
2). Financial power can also create insecurity, if one starts to wonder
whether others are loyal only because of that power. For instance,
Lucius quickly loses authority when Voldemort turns against him, a
process that has its symbolic apogee in the loss of his wand.
But it is also unlikely that readers come away from their experience
with Harry glorifying poverty. Our protagonist, with whom most of
us come to identify, comes from inherited money himself. While we
don’t know particulars, we know James did not have to work because
of his own inheritance. In this sense, Harry is more like his aristocratic
nemeses than he is like the Weasleys. He is even prone to normal
teenage fits of consumptive frenzy. In fact, in more socialist countries

like Sweden, the books have been panned as “ reflective of a soci-
ety that is thoroughly saturated by conservatism and commercialized
social life,” especially the apparent acceptance and normalization of
class inequality (Towns and Rumelili in Nexon and Neumann 63).
This may, however, say as much about current Muggle values in the
United States and United Kingdom as about magical values.
To be sure, Harry uses his far differently than do either the Malfoys
or the Dursleys, and it is not essential to his identity—a blessing of
growing up poor. But it does complicate what might otherwise be
straightforward tale of evil aristocracy versus virtuous middle class.
“Harry’s entering the Wizarding world doesn’t reject materialist val-
ues, it gives him access to them,” argues Westman (in Whited 310).
Although Gilbert (in Bryfonski, 2009) has criticised Harry’s val-
ues as being neither socialist nor redistributive, Rangwala argues that
Harry’s values, and the values that are valorized in his adventures,
are solidly “early middle class,” in a Weberian, Protestant Ethic sense,
“with emphasis on delayed gratification and discipline” (Rangwala in
Anatol 2009: 129). Rangwala is referring to Max Weber’s argument
that Protestantism’s emphasis on salvation through good works was a
driving force behind capitalism, because it equated productivity with
moral virtue. So Rangwala sees Rowling as depicting material wealth
as a possible reward of hard work, but only one of many. Here as else-
where, what matters is not how people are born, but the choices they
make.
Chapter 10
C onc lusion : H a r ry Po t t e r i n
t h e Pol i t ic a l Wor l d
Popular entertainment not only commands a larger audience than

the news or political events, but it frequently has a more powerful
impact on the way audiences come to their basic assumptions about
the world.
—Daniel Nexon and Iver Neumann, Harry Potter and
International Relations (8)
With Castro, I believe that “the best [novels] are fueled not . . . by
the intangible, often arbitrary rules of make-believe, but by the very
issues that drive the real world inhabited by their authors and readers”
(Castro in Lackey 131). If we have journeyed with Harry through the
last decade and a half, we have learned there are certain ways in which
human nature is human nature, whether Muggle or wizard. But we
have also seen that power and governance can be organized far differ-
ently than we Muggles commonly imagine.
Steven Weisman said of Sorcerer’s Stone, long before the political
themes of the series had clearly emerged, that “the context of the
book is magic, but its subject is society” (cited by Gellis in Lackey,
29). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was published in the
United Kingdom in June 1997, into a world that was still very much
in the immediate post–Cold War era. The time between the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the attacks of 9/11 appears in retrospect
as a brief and somewhat idealistic moment, when public intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama (1992) could predict “The End of History.” It
seemed to such observers that the last and greatest conflict between
states had ended and that the free market, “liberal” state had won,
over the top-heavy, inefficient alternative of Soviet-style communism.

The dominant process seemed to be globalization, accelerated by the
spread of the Internet and virtual markets, and other observers saw
in this the downside of the “end of history.” Benjamin Barber (1993)
termed the new globalized planet “McWorld”—a world increasingly
linked, increasingly homogenized, and increasingly lacking in ideol-
ogy, replaced instead by common consumer culture, where markets
and firms were more powerful than states, and citizens were in danger
of being reduced to consumers.
To some extent we are still in this era, and there are many aspects of
Harry’s Muggle world that will be troublingly familiar in their focus
on consumptive processes and material symbols of success, over cre-
ative or cultural achievement. The Dursleys’ concern with keeping up
appearances, especially in terms of the outward trappings of success,
makes them in many ways the classic fin-du-milennium bourgeois fam-
ily. Dudley embodies many common concerns about “Generation-Y”
youth, in his blind but insatiable obsession with the next big thing, in
the immediacy of his disenchantment with these new acquisitions, in
the planned obsolescence that reinforces such disenchantment, and in
the increasingly ubiquitous marketing that both creates such desires
and makes them ultimately unfulfillable.
While McWorld is driven in part by these unnatural yet unslak-
able desires, it is also driven by corporations’ boundless pursuit of
profit, the pathological overgrowth of capitalism. As I write this, the
Occupy movement in the United States and Europe is a year old—the
long-deferred cry of anguish and outrage by a middle and working
class increasingly bled dry by predatory practices on the part of the
global banking and credit sectors, and by the negligence of global
governments ensure that sector is not purposefully misleading their
citizens. While the gravity of the current global financial crisis was
only beginning to emerge when Hallows was published in July 2007,
Rowling clearly has something to say about how much we can trust
moneyed interests to rule wisely, and whether having acquired wealth
is a sign of the acquirer’s wisdom or justice. Not only are the Malfoys
undeservedly proud, completely dispassionate toward their fellow
creatures (wizards and others alike), and utterly corrupt, but these
traits are true of nearly all the very rich in Harry’s world. In fact, the
poorest family we meet is more than compensated for their relative
poverty by love, laughter, and loyalty. Rowling also makes clear that
the Weasleys have made a conscious choice in this matter—Arthur
has foregone chances for advancement because he will not compro-
mise his principles.
Conclusion 159
Globalization is challenged by another process that has found its

most obvious expression to date in the global “War on Terror”. Barber
called this process “Jihad,” though he did not mean, strictly, “holy
war.” Instead he meant any form of separatist fundamentalism—a
conviction that one’s worldview is the only correct one, and that oth-
ers must be wiped out. Importantly, any ideology, religious, nation-
alist, economic, or otherwise, can become fundamentalist; Barber
says, “I use the term . . . to suggest dogmatic and violent particular-
ism . . . known to Christians no less than to Muslims, to Germans and
Hindis as well as Arabs” (Barber 7).
One of the most dangerous aspects of fundamentalism is the extent
to which it promotes Manichean (dichotomizing, black-and-white, us-
versus-them) thinking. The danger of this sort of thinking—casting
one side as “good” and the other as “evil”—is that when we conceive
of our enemy as evil (and therefore, less human than we are), we can
justify stripping them of the basic rights we should all be accorded
simply by virtue of our humanity. In addition, most conceptions of
“evil” do not include the possibility of change or salvation. So a war of
good versus evil is much less likely to have a negotiable, compromised
solution possible than a war over a material resource or even a policy
position. There may be a way to share a piece of territory, or a way to
find a point between two policy positions—but most political leaders
do not want to be seen as compromising with evil. Unfortunately,
political entrepreneurs often find the simple and emotionally activat-
ing language of evil a useful tool in galvanizing public support.
Jo Rowling gives us an opportunity to consider a rather different
scale for measuring good and evil. After spending time in Harry’s
world, we may return to our own and see Americans and Afghans,
radical Islamists and evangelical Christians, Israelis and Palestinians,
as a bit less irreconcilable, a bit more as simply different versions of a
common race.
The global War on Terror has revived another debate that seemed
to have been put to rest in the post–Cold War moment: that between
realists and idealists. As we’ll recall from our discussion of war, real-
ists like Thucydides and Hobbes see the world mainly in terms of
power relationships, and states’ actions as dictated most importantly
by the fact of anarchy and the need to look out for their own secu-
rity. Idealists, on the other hand, see the potential for cooperation
under anarchy, especially when institutions and laws can build trust
between states, and when the cooperative tendency of human nature
can be expressed through democratic government. Moreover, ideal-
ists argue that, given the increasingly transnational nature of global
problems (including environmental degradation, global warming, and

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), such cooperation is
not only possible but necessary for the continued survival of the spe-
cies. Some couch the difference between realism and idealism as one
between prioritizing power and prioritizing justice.
Jo Rowling clearly asks us to consider these questions in the way
she deals with bases of authority and with the gathering clouds of
war. And she comes down on the side of justice. Seeking power for
power’s sake, and self-preservation above all else, may win in the short
term. It restores Voldemort to power, shames, threatens, or lures col-
laborators to his side, and allows him to take steps toward creating
the kind of world he wishes to see. But in the long term, it is not only
unjust and destructive to living beings of all kinds, it is ultimately
destructive to Voldemort himself. Believing in common good, in love,
in friendship, in loyalty, and in justice, ultimately not only defeats
Voldemort but makes Harry very nearly invincible. While Harry con-
stantly worries that Dumbledore errs too much on the side of believ-
ing the best of people, he (and we) learns that the dangers of believing
the worst of them are far greater. John Granger has written extensively
on Rowling’s use of misdirection, and noted that we may find that it
is us who have been prejudiced in judging her characters.
In Muggle history, the concept of justice has evolved over the mil-
lennia to increasingly include not only negotiating settlements between
great powers, but also protecting certain basic goods for all members
of the international community, including the weakest members. The
idea of basic human rights is at once being advanced by globalization’s
increasing knowledge of other parts of the world, and simultaneously
threatened by the oversimplified rhetoric of the War on Terror, ris-
ing global inequality, and the environmental challenges posed by a
growing population demanding the right to develop on par with the
West.
Most importantly, Rowling makes a plea for tolerance and human
dignity. In an interview she was asked “If there were one thing you
could change about the world, what would it be?” She replied, “I
would make each and every one of us much more tolerant”(Gellis in
Lackey 37). In fact, she demonstrates how relations can be organized
in more or less just ways, not only between races and species, but
between entirely different categories of creatures. One lesson that’s
impossible not to take away from growing up with Harry is that we
don’t have to all be alike to all be of value. Her portrayal of house-elves,
werewolves, giants, and centaurs, among others, indicates we can have
Conclusion 161
different abilities, different tendencies, even different natures, and still

deserve a right to live in freedom and dignity.
What’s perhaps most interesting in this is that we can find examples
of the very virtuous and very corrupt in nearly every type of creature,
from house-elves to werewolves, from giants to centaurs. (To be fair,
we may not have seen an example of an heroic troll, but that doesn’t
mean one doesn’t exist.) But here’s what this means—perhaps the
most important punch line of all: It is not what you are born that mat-
ters, but the choices you make. And Rowling tells us—and shows us-
time and time again—that we have choices. And that they all matter,
because we never know where they might lead.
How many times in our journey with Harry do we see an appar-
ently minor choice initiate a process that has unforeseen, but crucial,
consequences? Harry frees Dobby, with a spur of the moment decision
and a smelly sock, and wins a friend without whose help he might not
have survived. Petunia reluctantly, and (we can imagine) just barely,
decides to keep Harry safe after Lily is killed, and allows him to not
only live in innocuous anonymity, but to maintain the protection of
his mother’s love. Voldemort mishears Trelawney’s original prophecy,
and marks Harry as the Chosen One. None of these things was des-
tined to happen. Each was the result of an individual choice.
It is the same in our world—not only are we all affected daily by
things happening economically, politically, and environmentally on
the other side of the world, but we are absolutely capable of affecting
those things, and that world. We never know when a decision that
appears to be minor will have consequences beyond our wildest imag-
inings. And it is this, ultimately, the sum of our choices, that makes
us.
No t e s
3 Azkaban: Discipline, Punishment,

and Human Rights
1. NB other sources of law include judicial decisions, religious doctrine, etc.
2. And yet, African slaves in America were often described as less-
than-human in early literature, and compared to wild beasts and
animals, just as fake-Bellatrix refers to Muggles as “it” in Hallows.
Certainly, they were treated as such. Considering house-elves in light
of such benighted beliefs, we might wonder whether elves are really
only “part-human” or whether the demarcations between different
classes of beings is to some extent socially constructed. Since inter-
marriage and childbirth is possible between wizards and other types
of creatures, such as giants and veelas, biologically this suggests that
these creatures are not truly different species from wizards in any
meaningful way, as regards their rights. The nature of the relations
between wizards, other magical creatures, and Muggles is considered
in greater depth in the chapter on race, species, and power (chapter
4). Note, too, that any crime commited because of a person’s blood
status would, in the Muggle world, constitute a hate crime, and bear
with it additional penalties.
3. Obviously other civilizations, ancient and modern, in nearly all parts
of the world, have practiced slavery in some form. However, the focus
here is on the American case because it was in many ways the most
brutal and because they have so much better documentation of it than
any other modern cases.
4. Perhaps most famously expressed in Max Weber’s 1905 Protestant
Etihc and the Spirit of Capitalism, the “Protestant ethic” refers to the
belief under certain forms of Protestantism that one’s status as one
of God’s chosen is demonstrated by the outward manifestations of a
person’s productivity and worldly success.
6 Death Eaters and Dark Wizards:

Terror and Counterterror
1. Because of the contested meaning of the word that is the focus of this
chapter, and its fundamental unfixability without making implicit
164 Notes
political judgments about the acts and groups being described, it is

most appropriate to refer to it in quotation marks. However, for read-
ability it appears throughout the chapter without them.
2. There are of course exceptions; groups like the IR A or Hamas have
at various times controlled territory and civilian populations that can
indeed be targeted.
3. See, for example, Asia Security Monitor No. 17, March 5, 2003, “Al
Qaeda Operations in Bangladesh: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the
Hydra-Headed Terror Network”; interview given on September 11,
2003, by German Foreign Minister Fischer to the Tagesspiegel on “the
United States post 9/11 and terrorism as a hydra-headed monster,”
Richard Falk’s June 28, 1986 piece in the Nation, “A Program for the
Left: Thinking about Terrorism.”
4. Of course one could argue that this was a victory for Voldemort in
and of itself, to move people to the point where forms of power were
thought of as just that rather than as good or evil.
5. (Notably, this is one of two cases where parents’ political fortunes
seem poised to be ruined by the actions of their children, the other
being the case of Barty Crouches Jr. and Sr. This implies that the
wizarding community clings to ideas of familial shame and familial
honor that have largely disappeared in the Muggle world.)
6. There are exceptions of course even to this criterion, such as the 1983
bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.
7. One wonders what Voldemort’s reaction was to the Ministry’s autho-
rization for the use of the Unforgiveable Curses and lethal force dur-
ing his first reign of terror. Since he believes that there is no good or
evil, only power, is it possible that he saw this as a Ministry admission
that he was in fact correct?
8. As happened in a hotel in Las Vegas in 2005, reported in the Washington
Post, November 5, 2005, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366_pf.html.
8 The Only One He Ever Feared:

The Nature of War
1. Durmstrang, as mentioned in chapter 4,, is a rearrangement of Sturm
und Drang, and Grindelwald harkens not only to German woods but,
as Iver Neumann cleverly perceived, Grendel of Beowulf.
2. Individuals can also be responsible for diversionary wars, in which
external threats are used as a way to either boost internal popularity—
the well-documented rally around the flag effect—or to legitimize
consolidation of power, appropriation of resources, or restrictions on
civil rights and liberties.
Notes 165
9 Grunnings and Galleons: Materialism

in the Wizarding and Muggle Worlds
1. Interestingly, there is one striking exception to the Dursleys’ mean-
ness that is often overlooked—and that is their caring for Harry for
16 years with absolutely no recompense whatsoever (Mendelsohn in
Whited 173).
Bi bl iogr a ph y
Abanes, Richard. Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings: What
You Need to Know About Fantasy Books and Movies. Eugene, OR: Harvest
House Publications, 2005.
Anatol, Giselle Liza (ed.) Reading Harry Potter Again: New Critical Essays.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2009.
———. Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays: Contributions to the Study of
Popular Culture. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2003.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and
Spread of Nationalism (3rd ed). London: Verso. 2006.
Anelli, Melissa and J. K. Rowling. Harry, a History: The True Story of a Boy
Wizard, His Fans, and Life Inside the Harry Potter Phenomenon. New
York: Pocket Books, 2008.
Baggett, David, Shawn E. Klein, and William Irwin. Harry Potter and
Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts. Peru: Carus Publishing Company,
2004.
Barber, Benjamin. Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Bassham, Gregory (ed.). The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts
For Muggles. New York: Wiley, 2010.
Batchler, Janet Scott. What Will Harry Do? The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs
and Possibilities in Book 7. Lulu Publications, 2006.
Beahm, George. Muggles and Magic: An Unofficial Guide to J. K. Rowling
and the Harry Potter Phenomenon. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads
Publishing, 2007.
———. Fact, Fiction, and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World: An Unofficial
Guide. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.,
2005.
Belcher, Catherine, L. and Becky Herr Stephenson. Teaching Harry Potter:
The Power of Imagination in Multicultural Classrooms. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2011.
Bentham, Jeremy. The Panopticon Writings. Ed. Miran Bozovic. London:
Verso, 1995.
Blake, Andrew. The Irresistible Rise of Harry Potter. London: Verso, 2002.
Boyle, Fiona. A Muggle’s Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the
Harry Potter Universe. Kent Town, South Australia: Wakefield Press,
2004.
168 Bibliogr a ph y
Brendon, Piers. “The Churchill Papers: Biography.” Churchill College

Cambridge Website. Web. March 25, 2012 (http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk
/archives/collections/churchill_papers/biography/).
Brown, Karen, A. Prejudice in Harry Potter. College Station: Virtualbookwork.
com Publishing Inc., 2008.
Brown, Nancy Carpentier. The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family
Guide. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2007.
Brown, Stephen. Wizard: Harry Potter’s Brand Magic. London: Cyan
Communications Ltd., 2005.
Bryfonski, Dedria. Social Issues in Literature: Political Issues in J. K. Rowling’s
Harry Potter Series. Detroit: Cengage Learning, 2009.
CasaBianca, Louis M. Defogging the Future: Unauthorized Speculation about
Book Seven of the Harry Potter Series. Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing,
2006.
Colbert, David and Virginia Allyn. The Hidden Myths in Harry Potter:
Spellbinding Map and Book of Secrets. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin,
2004.
Colbert, David. The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter: A Treasury of Myths,
Legends, and Fascinating Facts. London: Puffin, 2005.
Dalton, Russell W. Faith Journey through Fantasy Lands: A Christian Dialogue
with Harry Potter, Star Wars, and the Lord of the Rings. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 2003.
Duriez, Colin. Field Guide to Harry Potter. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 2007.
Eccleshare, Julia. A Guide to the Harry Potter Novels. London: Continuum,
2002.
Erickson, Christian William. The Internal Face of the Garrison State: A
Comparison of United States and Russian Internal Security Institutions and
Policy, 1900—2004. Davis: University of California, 2004 (Dissertation
available online from UMI/Proquest).
FBI. “Hate Crimes: Overview.”
Federal Bureau of Investigation Websites. Web. March 25, 2012. (http://
www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview).
Fraser, Lindsey. Conversations with J. K. Rowling. New York: Scholastic,
2001.
Garrett, Greg. One Fine Potion: The Literary Magic of Harry Potter. Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press, 2010.
Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New
York: Random House, 1976.
Granger, John. The Deathly Hallows Lectures: The Hogwarts Professor Explains
the Final Harry Potter Adventure. Wayne, PA: Zossima Press, 2008.
———. Harry Potter’s Bookshelf: The Great Books behind the Hogwarts
Adventures. New York: Berkeley Books, 2009.
———. The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius
and Popularity of Joanne Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels. Port Hadlock,
WA: Zossima Press, 2002.
Bibliogr a ph y 169
———. How Harry Cast His Spell: The Meaning behind the Mania for J. K.
Rowling’s Bestselling Books. Carol Stream: SaltRiver, 2008.
———. Looking for God in Harry Potter: Is There Hidden Meaning in the
Bestselling Books? Carol Stream: SaltRiver, 2006.
———. Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader. Wayne, PA:
Zossima Press, 2007.
——— (ed). Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? What Really Happened in Harry
Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? Wayne, PA: Zossima Press, 2006.
Gunelius, Susan. Harry Potter: The Story of a Global Business Phenomenon.
Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan,
2008.
Gupta, Suman. Re-Reading Harry Potter. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2009.
Hallett, Cynthia Whitney. Scholarly Studies in Harry Potter. Lewiston, NY:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.
“Hamilton on the Balance between Liberty and Security.” Harpers
Magazine, February 5, 2008. Web. March 25, 2012. (http://harpers
.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002223).
Harmin, Karen Leigh. J. K. Rowling: Author of Harry Potter. Berkeley
Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2006.
Heilman, Elizabeth E. Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.
———. Harry Potter’s World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives. New
York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.
Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” The Project Gutenberg EBook of Leviathan,
October 11, 2009. Web. March 25, 2012 (http://www.gutenberg.org
/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm).
Houghton, John. A Closer Look at Harry Potter: Bending and Shaping
the Minds of Our Children. Eastbourne, UK: Kingsway Publications,
2002.
Hunt, Michael H. Ideology and Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2009.
Kern, Edmund M. The Wisdom of Harry Potter: What Our Favorite Hero
Teaches Us about Moral Choices. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003.
Kern, Edmund, et al. Selected Papers from Nimbus-2003 Compendium: We
Solemnly Swear These Papers Were Worth the Wait (The Harry Potter
Conference Papers). XLibris Corp, 2007.
The Nimbus-2003 Programming Team (Author), Edmund Kern (Author),
Roger Highfield (Author)
Killinger, John. God, the Devil, and Harry Potter: A Christian Minister’s
Defense of the Beloved Novels. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004.
———. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Harry Potter. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 2009.
Kronzek, Allan Zola and Elizabeth Kronzek. The Sorcerer’s Companion: A
Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter. New York: Random House,
Inc., 2001.
170 Bibliogr a ph y
Lackey, Mercedes. Mapping the World of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice (Harry

Potter). Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc, 2006.
Langford, David. The End of Harry Potter? London: Gollancz, 2006.
Lasswell, Harold D. “The Garrison State.” The American Journal of Sociology
46.4 (1941): 455–468.
Levy, Jack. “Alliance Formation and War Behavior: An Analysis of the
Great Powers,
1795–1975.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25.4 (1981): 581–613.
Mayes-Elma, Ruthann. Females and Harry Potter: Not All That Empowering.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006.
———. Harry Potter: Feminist Friend or Foe? Rotterdam: Sense Publishers,
2007.
Morris, Karen and Bradley, S Carol. Law Made Fun through Harry Potter’s
Adventures. CreateSpace, 2011.
Mulholland, Neil. The Psychology of Harry Potter: An Unauthorized
Examination of the Boy Who Lived (Psychology of Popular Culture Series).
Dallas, TX: Benbella Books, 2007.
Neal, Connie. The Gospel According to Harry Potter: The Spiritual Journey of
the World’s Greatest Seeker. Revised and Expanded Edition. Louisville and
London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
Nel, Philip. J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels. New York and London:
Continuum, 2003.
Neumann, Franz. Behemoth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942.
Nexon, Daniel. “‘Harry Potter’ and Magical Realism.” New Republic, July
20, 2007.
Nexon, Daniel and Iver B. Neumann (eds). Harry Potter and International
Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg, 1949.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Prinzi, Travis. Harry Potter and Imagination: The Way between Two Worlds.
Allentown, PA: Zossima Press, 2009.
——— (ed). Harry Potter for Nerds. Allentown, PA: Zossima Press, 2011.
——— (ed). Hog’s Head Conversations: Essays on Harry Potter. Allentown,
PA: Zossima Press, 2009.
Pyne, Erin A. A Fandom of Magical Proportions: An Unauthorised History of the
Harry Potter Fandom Phenomenon. Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble Books, 2007.
Pye, Lucian W. “Review: Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant
Resistance by James C. Scott.” The China Quarterly 107.1 (1986): 556–557.
Rattansi, Ali and James Donald. Race: Culture and Difference. London:
Sage Publications, 1992.
Rauhofer, Judith. “Defence against the Dark Arts: How the British Response
to the Terrorist Threat Is Parodied in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and
the Half Blood Prince.” International Journal of Liability and Scientific
Enquiry v1, 2007.
Bibliogr a ph y 171
Reagin, Nancy (ed). Harry Potter and History. New York: Wiley, 2011.
Riphouse, Acasias. The Harry Potter Companion. College Station, TX:
Virtualbookworm, 2003.
Rivers, Nathaniel. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Sycamore
Review: Literature, Opinion, and the Arts, January 15, 2008.
Rowling, J. K. 1999. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York:
Scholastic.
———. 2007. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic.
———. 2000. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. New York: Scholastic.
———. 2005. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York: Scholastic.
———. 2003. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York:
Scholastic.
———. 1997. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury.
———. 1999. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. New York: Scholastic.
———. 1998. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic.
Scamander, Newt (J. K. Rowling). Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.
London: Obscurus Books, 2001.
Schafer, Elizabeth D (ed.). Beacham’s Sourcebooks for Teaching Young Adult
Fiction: Exploring Harry Potter. Osprey, FL: Beacham Publishing Corp.,
2000.
Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.
Smith, Robert B. Hogwarts, Narnia, and Middle Earth: Place upon a Time.
Huson: Drinian Press, 2007.
Staudinger, Hans and Peter M. Rutkoff. The Inner Nazi: A Critical
Analysis of Mein Kampf. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press, 1982.
Stouffer, Tere. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the World of Harry Potter. New
York: Penguin Group, 2007.
Talbott, William.”Bayesian Epistemology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, March 26, 2008. WebMarch 25, 2012 (http://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/).
Thai, Xuan and Ted Barrett. “Biden’s Description of Obama Draws Scrutiny.”
CNN Washington Bureau, CNN Politics January 31, 2007. Web. March
25, 2012.
Thomas, Jeffrey E. and Franklin G. Snyder. The Law and Harry Potter.
Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2010.
Thomas, James W. Rowling Revisited: Return Trips to Harry, Fantastic Beasts,
Quidditch, & Beedle the Bard. Hamden, CT: Zossima Press, 2010.
———. Repotting Harry Potter: A Professor’s Book-By-Book Guide for the
Serious Reader. Wayne, PA: Zossima Press, 2009.
Thomas, Scott. The Making of Potterverse: A Month-By-Month Look at Harry’s
First 10 Years. Ontario: ECW Press, 2007.
Tilly, Charles. Social Movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers, 2004.
172 Bibliogr a ph y
Trevarthen, Geo. The Seeker’s Guide to Harry Potter. Blue Ridge Summit:
Axis Mundi Books, John Hunt Publishing, 2008.
Tumminio, Danielle. God and Harry Potter at Yale. Unlocking Press, Kindle
Edition, 2010.
UN General Assembly. “UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 ‘Measures
to Eliminate International Terrorism’” United Nationals Official Website
December 09, 1994. Web. March 25, 2012. (http://www.un.org
/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm).
UN Preamble. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United
Nationals Official Website. Web. March 25, 2012 (http://www.un.org
/en/documents/udhr/).
US Code. “22 USC 2656F: Annual Country Reports on Terrorism.” Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute Website. Web. March
25, 2012. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f).
US Supreme Court. “Furman vs. Georgia: 408 U.S. 238 (1972).” FindLaw
for Legal Professionals. Web. March 25, 2012. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.
com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=238).
Vergano, Dan. “Telling the Truth about Lie Detectors.” USA Today,
September 9, 2002. Web. June 6, 2012 (http://www.usatoday.com
/news/nation/2002-09-09-lie_x.htm).
Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2001.
Want, Robert S. Harry Potter and the Order of the Court: The J. K. Rowling
Copyright case and the Question of Fair Use. NationsCourts, 2008.
Warden, Rob. “George Whitmore Case Chronology.” Northwestern Law
Website, Center for Wrongful Convictions, 2006. Web. March 25, 2012.
(http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations
/nyWhitmoreChronology.html).
Waters, Galadriel, and Astre Mithrandir. Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the
Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis of Books 1–4). Niles, IL: Wizarding
World Press, 2002.
———. Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis
of Book 5). Niles, IL: Wizarding World Press, 2003.
———. Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis
of Book 6). Niles, IL: Wizarding World Press, 2005.
Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation.” From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.
Ed. H. H. Gerth and C. /
Wiener, Gary (ed). Readings on J. K. Rowling. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press, 2003.
Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946, 77–128. (http://
media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/dss/Weber/polvoc.html).
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction.
New York: Routledge Press, 2009.
Bibliogr a ph y 173
Whited, Lana (ed.). The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a
Literary Phenomenon. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002.
Wolosky, Shira. The Riddles of Harry Potter: Secret Passages and Interpretive
Quests. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Zimmerman, W. Frederick. Unauthorized Harry Potter Book Seven News:
“Half-Blood Prince” Analysis and Speculation. Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble
Books, 2006.
Zipes, Jack. Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children’s Literature
from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter. New York: Routledge Press, 2001.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper
Perennial Modern Classics, 2010.
I n de x
actors 3, 10, 56, 96–7, 99, 102 blocs 135

nonstate 97, 115, 136 Blood Status 63, 66, 74, 76, 81
adjudication 29, 31, 41 bourgeois 150
African Americans 49, 51 bourgeoisie 150
agents 121, 125–6, 128, 130, 141 brave 24, 52, 97, 127
allegiance 49, 75, 114, 143, 145 Britain 12, 17, 34, 117, 149
alliances 7, 62, 129–30, 139–40 Buckbeak 13, 36, 80, 92, 155
Amendment 37, 39–40, 43 bureaucracy 18, 20
anarchy 134, 137–8, 146, 162 bureaucrats 19
Anatol, Giselle 3–4, 28, 41, 52, 57, 93, Bush administration 124
157
Animagi 40, 121 capitalism 14, 17, 160, 165
anti-Muggle 83 Carey, Brycchan 4, 52
arbitrariness 46, 104 Castro 93, 105, 115, 159
arrests 101, 108 cells 98
Aryan race 70–1 cellularization 98
attitudes 2, 16, 22, 48–50, 54, 64–7, Chamber 13, 15, 17–18, 29, 45, 47,
70, 76, 78–9, 83 49, 64, 68–9, 73, 75–6, 83, 101,
wizarding world’s 65 106–8, 151–2
authority 5, 9–11, 13, 16, 24, 32, 34, chilling 113, 118
44–6, 87–91, 118, 134, 143, 157, choices 2, 6–7, 21, 34, 72, 80, 95,
162 100, 103, 107, 139, 143, 153, 157,
Avada Kedavara 123 163–4
Azkaban 5, 12, 24, 27, 31–2, 36–8, 41, circumstantial evidence 40
43–4, 73, 106, 125, 165 citizens 7, 9, 20, 27, 35, 53, 60–1, 109,
112, 114, 160
Bane 82, 140 city 107, 150
Barber, Benjamin 161 civilians 96–7, 122, 146
Barton, Benjamin 19–20, 32, 161 classes 89–90
Barty Crouch Jr. 38, 40–1, 111, 124, codes 1, 120–1, 124
127 collective action 6, 86–7
Barty Crouch Sr. 41 collective action problem 86, 90–1
beasts 77–8 colonizers 66
beings 5, 35, 78, 165 command, chain of 18, 43, 98–9, 101,
Bentham, Jeremy 113 139, 143, 159
bigotry 4, 78 commons 86, 140
Black, Sirius 18, 23, 31, 38, 40, 45, 93, community 6, 54–5, 152
102–3, 106–7, 109–10, 113–14, compartmentalization 129
120–1, 126–7, 141–2, 144 competition 14–15
176 Index
compliance, false 90, 92 Defense against the Dark Arts

compromise 55, 96, 112, 138–9, 161 (DADA) 45, 119, 126, 138, 156
confessions 27, 38, 107–8 defenseless 103
conflict 1, 7, 21, 105, 115, 133–5, dehumanization 30, 50
138–9, 143 Dementors 12, 29, 36, 38, 41–4, 65,
consolidation 12, 152 103, 108, 112
constituents 21 democracies 20–2, 25, 37, 69, 138–9,
Constitution, US 20–1, 35, 37, 39–40, 143
42–3 Department of Magical Law
constraints, macrolevel 89–90 Enforcement 29
consumerism, critics of 152 deployment, asymmetrical 102
consumption 149–50, 152 destruction 99
control 5, 10, 12, 21, 23, 44, 46, 50, detainees 37, 110–11
56, 63, 65, 88–9, 117, 121, 124 deterrence 43, 97–8
cooperation 16, 134, 138–9, 146, 162 dialect 48
corruption 19, 35, 42, 153–5, 160–1 disciplinary hearings 40–1
counterintelligence 7, 117, 124 discipline 5, 27, 43–6, 152, 157, 165
counterterror 6, 95, 106, 165 discretion 49, 81
court 36, 41, 43, 110 discrimination 6, 59, 69–70, 76, 81,
covert 90–1 146
crimes 41–2, 45, 66, 69, 96, 100, 108, disinformation 5, 7, 119
165 Disposal of Dangerous Creatures 35–6
criminal proceedings 41 disputes 142
crisis 61–3, 98, 105, 107–8, 110, 112 dissent 89–90, 113
Crouches 19, 40, 49–50, 53, 109–11 dissimulation 90, 92
cruelty 43–4, 50, 104 distrust 88, 117, 125, 128, 145
cryptography 7, 119–20 diversity 35, 79–80
cultural relativists 31 Dobby 48–50, 146, 163
cultures, bourgeois 150–2 Draco 13, 15, 24, 46, 69, 72, 75–6,
curse 39, 44, 120, 124 93, 97, 101, 106, 121, 128, 155–6
Dudley 151–2, 160
DA (Dumbledore’s Army) 6, 21, 33, Dumbledore, Aberforth 65, 83, 145–6
85, 87, 89–93, 97, 99, 101, 103, Dumbledore, Albus 2, 11, 16–17,
105, 107, 109, 111, 113 22–4, 36–8, 40, 44–6, 55–6,
Daily Prophet 22, 53, 87, 100, 106, 112 78–9, 81–2, 87–9, 92–3, 106–7,
dangers 59, 67, 87, 111, 161–2 127–30, 138–9
Dark Arts 23, 75, 95, 100, 109, 126–7, Dumbledore, Ariana 65, 83
156 Durmstrang 75, 134, 166
Dark Mark 24, 40, 81, 95, 111 Dursley, Marge 152
dark wizards 6, 114, 165 Dursley, Petunia 47, 151, 163
death, social 75 Dursley, Vernon 83, 117, 150–2
Death Eaters 12, 24, 28, 40–1, 43–4, Dursley. Dudley 11
46, 59, 63, 65, 68–9, 73–4, 95–6, Dursleys 8, 29, 83, 117, 149–54, 157,
98–102, 108–9, 111 160, 166
Deathly Hallows 3, 16, 24, 64, 67,
72–4, 80, 82–3, 127, 130, 138, egalitarians 78
140, 144–6, 156–7, 160 elections, fair 20–1
defense 10, 13, 34, 37, 40–1, 52, 110, elites 22, 52–3, 71, 89
118–19, 138, 156 emancipation 50–1
Index 177
employment 3, 18, 33, 62, 70, 82 government contracts 79

enemies 102, 114, 117, 119, 161 government power 32
enemy combatants 110 governments 5, 7, 9–10, 13, 15, 19,
enslavement 47, 49, 54 27–8, 32–3, 61, 87–8, 96, 99–100,
equality 6, 20, 34–5, 37, 57, 65, 78, 105–7, 109–12, 117–19
110, 118 local 23, 87
Espionage Act 112–13 national 19, 23
establishment 4–5, 110 wizard 33
evidence 5, 14, 22, 31–2, 34, 36–40, Granger, John 4–5, 20, 74, 76, 134,
42, 70–1, 78, 107, 110–11, 124, 150, 153
130 Grimmauld Place 14, 129, 156
evil 11, 83, 101, 114, 130, 133, 153, Griphook 80, 82, 85, 140
161, 166 groups
evolution 6, 136 disempowered 6
examinations 5, 17, 60, 71, 73 dominant 80
guilt 29, 36, 40–2, 46, 111
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find guilty 38
Them 77
fear 5, 7, 11, 23–4, 46, 50, 57, 63, 69, habeus corpus 34, 36–7, 110
79, 100–1, 103–5, 111–12, 114, Hagrid 11, 13, 21, 30, 35–6, 38, 40,
143–5 48, 50–1, 66, 80, 88, 107, 128,
Federal Bureau of Investigation 69 152–3
FEMA (Federal Emergency Half-Blood Prince 12, 16–17, 44–6,
Management Agency) 106 48, 67, 70, 72, 76, 83, 92, 95–6,
Figg, Arabella 39, 65 104, 106, 108, 128
Filch, Argus 45, 64–5, 101 half-bloods 59, 63–6, 72
Fletcher, Mundungus 39, 126–7, 153 hate crimes 37, 69, 165
Floo Network 19, 113–14, 120, 125 hearing 11, 27, 36, 40, 68
followers 24, 44, 46, 63, 88, 95, 98, heredity 5, 9, 12–13
143 heritage 70, 73
freedom 15, 20, 30, 50, 112, 118, 163 Hermione 5, 18, 31, 48, 50–5, 68, 74,
Fudge, Cornelius 15, 17, 21–3, 32–3, 78, 82, 85, 91–3, 100–1, 120–1,
36, 41, 44–5, 69, 78, 88–9, 92, 124–6, 140
106–7, 126–7, 138, 155 hierarchy 61, 68, 70–1, 73, 90, 99, 143
High Inquisitor 22
garrison state 6, 109, 114 history 2–3, 9, 12, 14, 56, 61, 71, 74,
Gaunt, Merope 65, 67 85, 96, 112, 130, 140, 159
Gaunt, Morfin 34, 36–8, 43, 47 Hitler 62–3, 67–8, 70–3, 114, 140,
gender 4, 67 147
Geneva Conventions 7, 28, 123, 145–6 Hobbes 10–11, 162
Germans 63, 70–1, 161, 166 Hogwarts 13, 17, 23, 27, 33, 44–6,
Germany 62, 67, 70, 114, 147 54–5, 75, 81, 100–1, 103–4, 108,
giants 6, 60, 77–80, 88, 91, 128, 163, 125–7, 137–8
165 Horcruxes 92, 143, 145
Goblet of Fire 19, 23–4, 40–1, 47–51, house-elves 2, 5–6, 31, 34, 47–56,
53–4, 69, 72, 74–5, 78–81, 85, 78–9, 82, 85, 163, 165
98, 107, 109–11, 127, 150 human nature 10, 19, 137–8, 159, 162
goblins 30, 68, 78–80, 82–3, 140 human rights 1, 3, 5–6, 27–8, 30–1,
God 12, 15, 165 42, 52–3, 67, 123, 165
178 Index
human shields 146 criminal 32

humiliation 45–6 customary 28, 44, 146
domestic 28–9, 34
idealism 138–9, 146, 162 formal 145
ideologies 59, 61, 63, 67–8, 70, 77, 89, international 6, 28, 41, 145, 162
134–5, 160–1 international human rights 27
Imperius Curse 29, 37, 57, 123–4 wizard 32, 38, 77, 82
individuals 20, 31–2, 41, 55, 60, 62, leaders 10, 17, 21, 53, 56, 98, 104,
69, 74, 78, 86, 97, 99, 104, 134–5, 139, 142–3, 147, 161
138 authoritarian 23
inequalities 34–5, 135, 154 legal processes 5, 35–6
innocence 29, 34, 36, 41–2 legal structures 32
presumption of 5, 36, 57, 110–11 legal systems 29, 31, 34–7, 41–2, 46,
insurgent groups 98–9, 105 112
intelligence 7, 77, 117–22, 125, 129–30, legilemency 38–9, 122
135, 141 legitimacy 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20–4, 28,
human 120 32, 57, 63, 68, 88, 118–19, 126
human-like 30, 35 Lestrange, Bellatrix 16, 24, 46, 72–3,
signals 113, 120 124, 128, 138, 143, 157
intelligence agencies 7, 119, 121–2 libertarians 20
intelligence gathering 7, 119–20, 125, liberties 6, 10, 20, 27, 33, 105, 109,
135 136, 150
intelligence operations 141 logic 65, 87, 100, 134–5, 137–8
international relations 3, 133, 159, 162 London 28, 113
international system 10, 134 Longbottom, Neville 64–5, 101
intolerance 61, 65 loyalty 7, 23–4, 46, 49, 57, 93, 98, 115,
invisibility 49, 99, 104–5, 130 122, 126–7, 143–4, 157, 161–2
Lupin, Remus 16, 30–1, 40, 79–81,
jeopardy, double 34 83, 119, 130, 144, 156
Jews 59, 61, 67–8, 70, 79
Jihad 161 magic 4, 7, 19, 28–9, 32–3, 40, 44,
judgments 36, 41 46–7, 57, 64–6, 82–3, 89, 96–7,
jurisprudence 34, 36 102–3, 125
jury 40–1, 44, 57, 110–11 magical community 77
jus in bello 7, 145–6 magical creatures 1, 6, 23, 34, 36,
justice 5, 20, 25, 28, 30–1, 37, 41, 46, 56–7, 60, 77–9, 81–3, 85, 139–40,
55, 57, 110, 138–9, 162 153, 155, 163, 165
miscarriages of 35, 37 magical parents 64
magical world 2–3, 15, 21, 33, 65–6,
kings, philosopher 16 68, 70, 72, 77, 117, 120, 153
Malfoy, Draco 128, 155–6
Lackey, Mercedes 93, 105, 115, 159, Malfoy, Lucius 13, 24, 35–6, 46, 80,
163 101, 155–7
land 34, 37, 82, 86 Malfoys 2, 14–15, 35, 46, 48–50, 56,
Lasswell, Harold 109 72–4, 76, 81, 93, 108, 111, 121,
law, Muggle 32–3 144, 153–7
laws 3, 5, 9, 20, 28–9, 31–5, 37, 42, Marine barracks in Beirut 166
44, 57, 69–70, 77, 89, 110 masses 63, 122
constitutional 32 material goods 151–2
Index 179
McWorld 160–1 nation-states 62, 98, 109, 133, 136,

media 5, 9, 53–4 139, 143
meritocracy 5, 17–18, 21 nature 5–7, 10–11, 22, 34, 39, 47, 51,
middle class 63, 150 68, 72, 77, 79–80, 89, 93, 104–6,
military 98, 122, 139, 141–3, 146 114–15
Military Commissions Act 37, 110 Nazi 59, 61, 79
minister 19, 23, 29, 32–3, 45, 96, 109, Nel, Philip 1, 56, 85, 149
115, 119 Neumann, Iver 141
Minister of Magic 33 Nexon, Daniel 3
Ministry of Magic 12–13, 15, 18–20, nobility, landed 150
22, 28–9, 32–3, 44–5, 68–70, nonstate actors 97
73–4, 82–3, 87–9, 95–8, 101–3, nonstate terror groups 99
107–8, 154–5 norms 1, 28, 41, 70, 113, 138–9, 149
Ministry response to Voldemort 115
Ministry’s power 32 offenses 45–6
minorities, racial 72 Office of Misinformation 119
misinformation 119 Ollivander 76, 137, 153
Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Act 66 oppression 49–50, 57
mobilization 6 Order of the Phoenix 7, 12, 22–3, 32,
monarch 13 49, 68, 73, 79–80, 82–3, 88, 91,
money 3, 8, 14, 62, 118, 149–51, 117–18, 120, 125–30, 155–6
153–7 ownership 16, 82, 92
morale 7, 142–3
Mudbloods 6, 59, 67, 69, 72–4, 87, paranoia 112, 134, 138
101 Parselmouth 108
Muggle-borns 6, 13, 15, 30, 59, 64–5, part-humans 30–1, 78, 165
70, 72–4, 76, 100–1 passive noncompliance 91–2
Muggle courts 35, 38 paternalism 48, 65–6
Muggle governments 88 peers 21, 23, 34, 41, 57, 110
Muggle history 5, 14, 79, 162 Pettigrew, Peter 24, 31, 40, 104, 121,
Muggle intelligence 124 127, 130, 144
Muggle intelligence personnel 126 philosophy 17, 43
Muggle interest groups 55 Plato 16
Muggle interrogators 39, 141 police 47, 105, 107–8
Muggle mind control 124 policy 3, 71, 118
Muggle parentage 68, 75 political agendas 53
Muggle politicians 106 political disempowerment 75
Muggle Protection Act 66 political entrepreneurs 53, 63, 68,
Muggles 1, 6, 19–20, 29–30, 37–8, 161
55, 59–60, 64–7, 69–70, 72–4, political power 7, 10, 85, 118–19
83–4, 100–1, 103, 121–2, political scientists 3, 62, 85–7
129–30 political themes 3, 159
Muggle society 154 politics 1–2, 4, 7, 9, 52, 54, 85, 133,
Muggle state 33 139, 142
Muggle world 1–2, 4–7, 20, 28, 31, polities, Muggle 1, 90
38–9, 43, 47, 51, 66, 80–1, polity 21, 62, 68, 114
83–4, 143, 156, 165–6 Polyjuice Potion 92, 121
population 53, 62, 88, 96–7, 104–5,
nations 31, 60, 63, 71, 137, 143, 166 112, 114, 118
180 Index
Potter, Harry 1–4, 15–19, 21–4, resistance 6, 71, 85, 87, 90–1, 93, 122
38–42, 45–9, 73–5, 91–3, 111–13, everyday forms of 90–1
119–22, 126–30, 133–8, 143–6, Riddle, Tom 28, 34–6, 44, 46, 101
151–5, 162–3, 166–73 rights 13, 27–8, 30–1, 33–4, 40, 42,
Potter, Lily 64, 163 47, 52–3, 74, 115, 165
Potters 5, 40, 74, 103, 119, 127, 144 basic 65, 67
poverty 15, 156–7 individual 28, 32–3, 57
power 8–16, 22, 32–3, 44, 46, 53–4, Rowling, Joanne 1–5, 17–19, 25, 33,
65, 81–3, 102, 104–5, 127–8, 42, 52, 56–7, 82–3, 85, 123–4,
134–40, 143–4, 161–3, 165–6 127–8, 133, 149, 160–3
balance of 134, 139 rulers 9, 11–12, 21
legitimate 95
magical 11, 64–5 safe house 129–30
power relationships 46, 162 Scamander 77
power structures 20, 57 scapegoating 61, 107–8
prefect 13, 17–18 Scott, James 1, 89–93
prejudice 60–1, 78, 154 Scrimgeour, Rufus 17, 106
press 4, 22, 27, 112 security 7, 27, 109–10, 114, 129–30,
principles 18, 110, 144–6, 161 157, 162
Prinzi, Travis 16, 30, 56 segregation
prisoners 37, 56, 71, 113 economic 70, 75
prisons 27, 42, 113 educational 74–5
Privet Drive 83, 127, 149–50 self-censorship 113
process, political 3, 61 self-incrimination 34, 37
profiling 107–8 self-interest 10, 55
prohibition 27–8, 43, 110 sentencing 5, 32, 34–6, 41–3, 46–7,
propaganda 68, 90 110–11
protection 33–4, 37, 48, 69, 78, 104–5, servants, civil 32, 153
109, 163 slaveholders 48, 51
protest 89–90 slavery 5, 27–8, 47, 51–2, 55
public opinion 3, 21, 53, 68–9, 105–6 slaves 48–51
punishments 5–6, 27, 30, 34, 37–8, Slytherin 73, 75, 108
41–6, 57, 89, 165 Snape, Severus 7, 16, 18, 23, 29, 38,
purebloods 6, 13, 15, 22, 59, 63–4, 73, 45–6, 64, 92, 95, 99, 111, 122,
76, 134, 153 127–8, 141
social capital 152–4
Quirrell, Professor 11, 125–6 Socialists 59
society 4–7, 10, 28, 31, 33–4, 43–5,
race 6, 12, 61, 67, 69–71, 75, 82–3, 47, 51, 56–7, 60, 69, 72, 74–5,
163, 165 103–4, 150–5
Rattansi, Ali 60–1 Sorcerer’s Stone 11, 13, 31, 66–7, 75,
Reagin, Nancy 3, 20, 32, 74–5 82–3, 117, 126, 137, 140, 154, 156
Realism 10–11, 134, 137–8, 146, 162 Southern states 48–50, 61, 71
reasonable doubt 36 sovereign 10
Reasonable Restriction of Underage species 6–7, 59, 71–2, 77, 81, 138, 140,
Sorcery 29 162–3, 165
rebellion 85 SPEW (Society for the Promotion of
recycling 86–7 Elfish Welfare) 51–6
religion 60–1, 67, 69, 89 spies 121, 125–7
Index 181
spycraft 7, 119–20, 123 Tilly, Charles 99–100, 102

Squibs 30, 64–5, 83, 101 tolerance 4–6, 25, 60, 163
state control 114 torture 5, 16, 27, 38, 114, 123–4, 142
state of nature 10–11 Trade Unionists 59
state power 10 trial 27, 31–2, 35, 37–42, 44, 56, 98,
states 7, 10–11, 21, 23, 69, 97–8, 102, 110–11
104–5, 114–15, 119–20, 133–5, jury 34, 41, 110
137–9, 145–6, 159–60, 162 Triwizard Tournament 79, 87, 96, 119
autocratic 20, 142 trolls 77, 79–80, 163
democratic 138, 142–3 trust 10–11, 16, 19, 23, 49, 85, 88, 109,
powerful 137 121, 125, 129–30, 140, 143–5,
state-society-individual relationship 31 160, 162
state terror 69, 103–4
state terrorism 97 Umbridge, Dolores 2, 38, 62, 67, 76,
statute 29, 89 79, 81–2, 91–3, 113, 125–6, 155
Statutory law 28–9 uncertainty 7, 101, 104–5
Staudinger, Hans 62–3, 70 unconventionality 100, 102
students 13, 23, 33, 45–6, 55, 67, 75, Unforgiveable Curses 44–5, 114, 166
81–2, 89, 91, 93, 103, 138 United States 2, 7, 12, 19–20, 32–4,
subject 10, 12, 18, 21, 29, 34, 46, 48, 36–40, 42–3, 47, 49, 61, 66–7, 72,
61, 97, 122, 133, 139, 159 75, 102, 122–4
subordination 49–50 and Britain 6, 20, 52, 107, 113, 157
Supreme Court 122 and Europe 160
surveillance 112–13 US Code 96–7
sustainable environment 86
Veritaserum 38, 91, 122, 128
tactics 7, 11, 53–4, 73, 95, 97, 100, violence 4, 28, 66, 71, 102
114, 124–5, 136 Voldemort 10–13, 15–17, 22, 24, 46,
technologies, new 87–8, 136 63, 67–9, 72–4, 76, 87–8, 106–10,
terror 6–7, 11, 37, 73, 88, 95–7, 124–30, 135–8, 140–3, 157
99–107, 112, 115, 123, 136,
161–3, 165 Waltz, Kenneth 134–5
first reign of 100, 109–10, 166 wands 16, 24, 39, 54, 69, 76, 81–2,
insurgent 103–4 103, 157
terror events 100, 105 war 1, 7, 37, 71, 88, 96, 98, 100, 103,
terror groups 115, 123, 133–9, 141–3, 145–7,
insurgent 102, 105 161–3
substate 98 formal laws of 7, 145–6
terrorism 88, 96–7, 99–106, 113, 115, global 161–2
123, 136, 166–7 laws of 28, 141
terrorist acts 96, 103–4 wizarding 139, 141, 143
terrorist organizations 96, 98, 104, warfare 7, 136, 141
106, 114 asymmetrical 136
terror organizations 98–9, 104, 114 psychological 121, 141
Thomas, Jeffrey 3, 19–20, 27, 33, 38, wealth 5, 8–9, 13–15, 149, 154, 157
43, 161 material 149, 152–3, 155, 157
threats 7, 12–13, 16, 49, 82, 102, 104, weapons 88, 93, 141
106–7, 111, 114, 117, 150 Weasley, Arthur 32, 39, 69, 76, 88,
Thucydides 10, 135, 137, 162 107–8, 111, 126, 128, 130, 155
182 Index
Weasley, Fred 22, 50, 92–3, 119, 144 Wizarding and Muggle Worlds 166
Weasley, George 22, 50, 85, 92–3, 144 wizarding attitudes 6, 59, 73
Weasley, Ginny 101 wizarding community 17, 56, 64, 71,
Weasley, Molly 23, 88 80, 101, 166
Weasley, Percy 17–19, 88, 126 Wizarding Examinations
Weasley, Ron 15, 51, 55, 74, 78, 80, Authority 156
82, 92–3, 95, 100–1, 111, 120, wizarding gene 64
126, 133, 140 wizarding world 1, 5, 8, 14, 28, 30–2,
Weasleys 15, 19, 66, 69, 76, 93, 95, 34–5, 37–9, 42–4, 47–8, 54, 124–5,
101, 144, 153–4, 156–7, 160–1 129–30, 153–4, 157
werewolves 6, 30–1, 72, 78–81, 83, wizard justice 41
140, 156, 163 wizards 28–31, 33–5, 50–2, 54–6,
Western jurisprudence 41 59–61, 63–5, 69–70, 76, 78–80,
Wilson, Woodrow 112–13 82–3, 89–90, 121, 139–40, 153–4,
Winky 40, 48–50, 81, 111 165
wisdom 5, 9, 16–18, 150, 160 evil 144
witches 54, 64–5, 68, 74, 89–90, 120 wizard society 44, 59
witness 37, 39 World War II 30, 62, 134, 142, 146–7
wizard attitudes 6, 48, 59, 73
wizard conflict 140 Zinn, Howard 49–52

The Politics of Harry Potter (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Politics of Harry Potter (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Th e Pol i t ic s of H a r ry Po t t e r

Also by Bethany Barratt

1. Rowling, J. K.—Political and social views. 2. Politics in literature.

1 Introduction: Politics in the World of Harry Potter 1

uniforms, house emblems, ties, blazers, scarves, as well as a variant of

many Americans as part of the House of Representatives Committee

world through incantations and willful concentration in the meta-

I n t roduc t ion : Pol i t ic s i n t h e

grown up with Harry have grown up in a magical world that is no less

course, several more general works include political discussions as part

political satire throughout—many have speculated that Crookshanks

We also explore the importance of the control of information (and

long-term unforeseen consequences for political institutions and pro-

Chapter 9, “Grunnings and Galleons: Consumerism and

P erhaps the oldest question in political theory is the basis of authority—

In the wizarding world’s power contests, we see all of these claims

an independent voice? When and how is it instead transformed into a

Realism: Voldemort, Machiavelli, and Hobbes

analysis. Because states comprise people, and people cannot be trusted

Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans lapping at the shores.) Because

that their success in the economic realm indicated a natural fitness to

“Don’t tell me you don’t know?” he said delightedly. “You’ve got a

It’s telling how engrained this sense of droit de noblesse is in the

suffered humiliation, imprisonment, torture, loss of their wands,

From Meritocracy to Bureaucracy

That he is [was] stiff, upright, . . . dressed in an impeccably crisp suit and

Bureaucratic insulation also tends to lead to corruption, because of

35 also in Bryfonski, 51). In fact, Barton characterizes it as “100%

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect

For the purposes of considering legitimacy, the most important con-

journalistic outlets have to make decisions about what stories make it

A Case of Power without Legitimacy:

long-term consequences of her actions, and completely tone deaf to the

Other Challenges to and Sources of Legitimacy

most may be those who have no loyalty other to themselves. One

What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of

The punishments meted out both at Hogwarts and Azkaban have

and 6 [right to a fair trial]. For an excellent discussion see Hall in

The Ministry: A Functional System of

● The fourth and final minimum component of any effective legal

Justice and Due Process as

that different understandings of the state-society-individual relation-

Muggle and Wizarding Legal Structures

society, such as ensuring more just societal relations. It “might serve as

Civil Rights and Liberties Not Directly

● Equality before the law

While the wizarding world provides us with no evidence on the status

the consistency of their application. Equality before the law is enshrined

a defense attorney might cite Hagrid’s disabilities and the disadvan-

Wizard law allows for regular detaining of persons in Azkaban,

accordingly. Unlike legilemency, however, reading these signs is as

is warranted, quite apart from the question of guilt or innocence of

certainly not unusual. Similarly, heinous punishments such as drawing

This clearly does seem to be an assault on human dignity at its most

position outside Ministry processes and authority at first appears to

The arbitrariness of “sentencing” and the range of humiliating and

because most of it seems to be done by ordinary Ministry function-

Human Rights Abuse and Advocacy:

commodifiable than slaves were in the transatlantic slave trade3. Harry

published 1837, available online at http://www.merrycoz.org/slave/

A slaveowner’s subjugation of her slaves is made all the easier if slaves

of the slave system did cause many slaves to somewhat internalize

“brainwashed” as Hermione argues (Goblet 239), or are there at least