THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HARRY POTTER

B ENB E L LA BOOKS , INC.
Dallas, Texas
An Unauthorized Examination
of the Boy Who Li ed
E D I T E D B Y
NEIL MULHOLLAND, PH.D.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
HARRY POTTER

2 3 3
Lyubansky examines the question of racial prejudice in the world
of Harry Potter. Rowling portrays a race-blind society at Hogwarts
but pursues the issue of race through proxy: the hatred of the purebloods
for the “Mudbloods” and the slavery of the house-elves. But,
Lyubansky argues, the issues of race and prejudice are not so easily
categorized.
MIKHAIL LYUBANSKY, PH.D.
Harry Potter and the Word
That Shall Not Be Named
“RACE” IN THE twenty-fi rst century is ubiquitous. It infl uences
our understanding of history and current events, school achievement
and athletic success, and both interpersonal relationships and
group dynamics. Yet, in many contexts and social circles, race is so
emotionally threatening that for many White people it has simply
become “the word that shall not be named.” Moreover, even those
willing to name it struggle to fi nd shared meaning in a word that
means many different things to different people. But what if there
were a magical parallel universe where these racial themes could be
safely explored under the guise of wizards and Muggles and elves?
At its best, by taking advantage of our suspension of disbelief, fi ction
can penetrate our psychological defenses and reach our core
beliefs. J. K. Rowling understands this. She uses the Harry Potter
series not only to entertain, but to provide readers with a real world
moral framework that explicitly encompasses race-related issues.
This essay will examine contemporary assumptions about race in 2 3 4 THE P S YCHOLOGY OF HARRY POTTER
the Harry Potter universe using two different levels of analysis. The
fi rst part will examine the series’ underlying racial ideology of color-
blindness, while the second will examine the nature of racism
and the psychological impact of enslavement, as portrayed by the
characters.
The Racial Utopia
At fi rst glance, the Harry Potter universe seems to have little racial
tension. There are a handful of non-White characters, including fellow
Gryffi ndors Lee Jordan, Dean Thomas, Angelina Johnson, and
Parvati Patil, as well as Harry’s fi rst romantic interest, Cho Chang. Yet
Rowling treats race with far less attention than she does the Weasleys’
hair color. Even though she provides the non-White characters with
racial identifi ers (e.g., Angelina Johnson is described as “a tall black
girl with long, braided hair” [Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
224] and Dean Thomas as “a Black boy even taller than Ron” [Harry
Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone 122]), 1 neither race nor racial status are
ever mentioned by any of the characters.
Indeed, the racial identifi ers seem to exist only as a vehicle for
Rowling to show how race has no real meaning in her magical universe.
Perhaps she wants to show the reader a racial utopia, even as
she is depicting parallel forms of racism directed against Muggles,
half-bloods, and elves. If so, it is worth pointing out that in the real
world, there is little agreement about what a racial utopia would look
like, with multiculturalists and social conservatives (who are predominantly
White) usually having contrasting visions. The racial
utopia of the Harry Potter series falls squarely within the neo-conser-
1 In contrast to the non-White characters, none of the White characters are racially identifi ed.
Part of the reason lies in the privilege of Whiteness: “As the unmarked category against which
difference is constructed, whiteness never has to speak its name, never has to acknowledge
its role as an organizing principle in social and cultural relations” (Lipsitz 1). But like Lord
Voldemort’s name, the omission of “The Race That Shall Not Be Named” (Woods 2) signifi es
more than merely the absence of necessity. Naming “Whiteness” brings to mind various racial
discrepancies that affect every aspect of our lives and brings awareness to racial privilege, a
process that tends to make White people feel uncomfortable (Kivel), even though there is
no similar discomfort in using racial identifi ers to refer to people of color. To experience this
discomfort, I invite you to try Thandeka’s “Race Game,” in which the African-American theologian
and journalist challenges White people, for one week, to racially identify other Whites
whenever making reference to them (e.g., “my White friend Ron”).Harry Potter and the Word That Shall Not Be Named 2 3 5
vative racial ideology (Omi & Winant). According to this ideology,
race is assumed to be socially constructed and racial justice is pursued
via a color-blind society in which everyone pursues the American/
British dream by “lifting themselves up by the bootstraps” (i.e., a
“just world” that rewards good choices and a strong work ethic).
“‘It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than
our [biological or God-given] abilities,’” says Dumbledore (Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 333), who later reminds Fudge, the
Minister of Magic, that what people grow to be is much more important
than what they were when they were born (Goblet of Fire 708).
Accordingly, for neo-conservatives, the belief that race (a biological
or God-given characteristic) does not matter is typically grounded in
one or both of two seemingly contradictory but actually compatible
beliefs—that “we” are all the same (i.e., “humans” or “Americans” or
“Muggles”) or that each one of us is a unique person.
The color-blind ideal is so eminently reasonable that it can seem
almost objectionable even to question it. After all, who wouldn’t want
to be perceived as a unique being, while at the same time have his/her
humanity recognized? Yet, critics of a color-blind ideology (and there
are many) reject it for several reasons. To begin with, they point out
that a color-blind ideal, at best, does nothing to curtail the institutional
and interpersonal racism that are still experienced by people
of color on a daily basis and, at worst, actually works to maintain the
racial hierarchy by pretending and acting as though it doesn’t exist
(think the Ministry of Magic during its denial of Voldemort’s return).2
In addition, critics of racial color-blindness argue that racial status is
associated with cultural experiences (e.g., music preferences, experiences
of discrimination) that shape a person’s identity or sense of self.
This perspective is well-captured by Dr. Lisa Delpit, executive director
of the Center for Urban Education & Innovation:
2 This is the stance taken by most social scientists interested in race, as well as the offi cial
position of the American Sociological Association, whose 2002 statement on race posits that
“Refusing to acknowledge the fact of racial classifi cation, feelings, and actions, and refusing to
measure their consequences will not eliminate racial inequalities. At best, it will preserve the
status quo.”2 3 6 THE P S YCHOLOGY OF HARRY POTTER
“I don’t see color, I only see children.” What message does this statement
send? That there is something wrong with black or brown, that
it should not be noticed? I would like to suggest that if one does not
see color, then one does not really see children. Children made “invisible”
in this manner become hard-pressed to see themselves worthy
of notice.
To be sure, there is no evidence in the books that any of the non-
White characters suffer from poor self-esteem or any other negative
state, but there is no evidence to the contrary, either. One of the privileges
of Whiteness is to deny the impact of race on people’s lives,
and this privilege is readily apparent in the Harry Potter series. The
truth is that, because the stories are almost exclusively told through
the eyes of White characters who don’t notice race, we really don’t
(can’t!) know anything about the reality of the non-White characters.
To see racism, critics of color-blindness argue, it is fi rst necessary to
see race.3
Yet, even within the neo-conservative ideology, Rowling’s portrayal
of race is problematic in that non-White characters barely seem to
exist and none occupy positions of authority. This is evidenced by
the fact that Cho Chang is the only non-White character who is developed
to any degree, as well as by the fact that not a single adult
character in any of the books is a person of color—not even in the
otherwise progressive Hogwarts. Their absence is conspicuous, especially
given that Rowling has worked for Amnesty International and
clearly intended to create a multicultural society in which cultural
differences, while generally unnoticed, are celebrated when the occasion
permits (e.g., Seamus Finnigan’s shamrock-covered tent and
other decorations at the Quidditch World Cup). No doubt, Rowling
intended to comment on race by focusing on blood status and elf
rights. Her treatment of these topics provides ample opportunity to
examine both contemporary and historical race relations, and it is to
these racial metaphors that I now turn.
3 This statement is a reasonable summary of the multicultural racial ideology—that race, although
socially constructed, should be recognized (seen) in order to validate the experiences
(both positive and negative) and cultural differences (e.g., food, music, dialect) that members
of racial minority groups may share.