Childhood: A Journal for the Study and
Research of Children’s Culture
‫ כתב עת לחקר תרבות ילדים‬:‫ילדּות‬
1 ‫גיליון מספר‬
Volume No. 1
‫ ד"ר גליה שנברג‬,‫ ד"ר שי רודין‬,‫ ד"ר שרה מאיר‬:‫מערכת‬
Editorial Board: Dr. Sara Meyer, Dr. Shai Rudin,
Dr. Galia Shenberg
Academic Council: Professor Tamar Alexander,
Professor Miri Baruch, Professor William Freedman,
Professor Uzi Shavit, Professor Aliza Shenhar
,‫ פרופ' מירי ברוך‬,‫ פרופ' תמר אלכסנדר‬:‫מועצה אקדמית‬
‫ פרופ' עליזה שנהר‬,‫ פרופ' עוזי שביט‬,‫פרופ' ביל פרידמן‬
‫ המכללה לעיצוב‬,‫ באדיבות מכללת תילתן‬,‫ קסניה לוגובסקי‬:‫איור הכריכה‬
‫ולתקשורת חזותית‬
Cover Drawing: Ksenia Lugosky, by courtesy of Tiltan College for
Design & Multimedia
‫אלול תשע"ה‬
2015 ‫אוגוסט‬
August 2015
Copyright © 2015 by Gordon Academic College of
Education
All Rights Reserved
‫כל הזכויות שמורות למכללה האקדמית לחינוך גורדון‬
‫תקצירים‬
‫תקצירי המסות והמאמרים‬
‫עוולות בלתי נראות בסדרת הארי פוטר‬
‫לורן ברמן‬
‫בשנים שחלפו מאז פרסומה של סדרת הארי פוטר של ג'יי קיי‬
‫רולינג‪ ,‬הספרים הפכו לתופעה ספרותית ולנושא לניתוח ביקורתי‬
‫במגוון רחב של תחומים מהספרות ועד לפסיכולוגיה ואפילו‬
‫ביולוגיה‪ .‬מטרתו של המאמר הנוכחי הוא להתמקד בהיבטים‬
‫הסוציולוגיים של הסדרה‪ ,‬במיוחד האופן שבו מושג הרוע‪ ,‬כפי שהוא‬
‫מוצג בסדרה‪ ,‬משקף תנאים חברתיים קיימים כגון התעללות‬
‫בילדים‪ ,‬בריונות ועבדות‪ .‬הטענה היא כי רעיון הרוע בספריה של‬
‫רולינג בא לידי ביטוי באמצעות הדמויות הרשעות ועל ידי ניתוח‬
‫הפעולות והמניעים של הדמויות הללו ניתן להשיג הבנה ברורה יותר‬
‫של הסכנות החברתיות הקיימות בעולמנו‪.‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
Abstract
Abstracts
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Lauren Berman
In the years since J. K. Rowling’s publication of her Harry
Potter series, the books have become a literary sensation
and have been the object of critical analysis in a broad
range of fields from literature to psychology and even
biology. The purpose of the current paper is to focus on the
sociological aspects of the series, particularly the manner in
which the concept of evil as presented in the novels reflects
existing social conditions such as child abuse, bullying and
slavery. It is argued that Rowling’s concept of evil takes
shape through the villains in the narrative and by analyzing
the actions and motivations of these characters it is possible
to gain a clearer understanding of the dangers of social
evils.
18
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
through an analysis of their behavior and its consequences
in accordance with the evil-constitutive traits delineated in
Daniel M. Haybron’s article, “Evil Character.”
The first and most obvious example of social evil in
the text appears in the form of the maltreatment Harry
suffers at the hands of his obnoxious relatives, the
vindictive and sadistic Dursleys. Child abuse has been
referred to as the “invisible social evil” (NSPCC) due to the
fact that the abuse of children by their caregivers often
remains unidentified for it occurs within a framework that is
expected to ensure the safety of the child (Carter 239).
There are many definitions of the term “child abuse” in
current use. However, the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of the US government offers a
comprehensive definition, which defines the phenomenon
as: “at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the
part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious
physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or
an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of
serious harm” (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2).
The Dursleys’ systematic mistreatment of Harry is
characterized both by physical and emotional abuse as well
as neglect. The Child Welfare Information Gateway of the
U.S Department of Health and Human Services defines
physical abuse as any “nonaccidental physical injury
(ranging from minor bruises to severe fractures or death)”
inflicted by “a person who has responsibility for the child”
(Child Welfare Information Gateway 2). Emotional abuse is
The articles
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Lauren Berman
Throughout her novels, J. K. Rowling provides a vivid
account of several social evils facing contemporary society.
The term “social evil” customarily refers to certain social
transgressions such as prostitution or excessive alcohol
consumption. However, in this essay a given act is
classified as constituting a “social evil” when it has adverse
repercussions for society in general as well as for the
particular individual targeted for victimization. Three
examples of this phenomenon are examined herein: child
abuse, bullying and slavery.1
The most salient point regarding the concept of evil
in Rowling’s texts is that it does not exist independently of
the characters that represent it. In other words, the author’s
view of evil in these works takes shape through the actions
and motivations of the villains in the narrative.
Consequently, the purpose of this article is to examine the
various perpetrators of social evil in the Harry Potter series
1
These three examples were selected due to the fact that they reflect
issues that exist or have existed in the real world and, as such, resonate
with readers who are readily able to comprehend and even identify
with them.
188
Lauren Berman
“a pattern of behaviour that impairs a child’s emotional
development or sense of self worth” and includes “constant
criticism, threats, or rejection as well as withholding love,
support or guidanceˮ (Child Welfare Information Gateway
3), and neglect is the failure to provide for a child’s basic
needs (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2). In their
article, “Harry Potter and the Resilience to Adversity,”
Danielle Provenzano and Richard Heyman provide
evidence confirming Deborah De Rosa’s claim that the
Dursleys neglect their nephew by “withholding necessary
food, clothing, shelter, and educational opportunities”
(O’Brien 9 in De Rosa 166). For instance, in the first two
installments of the series, Harry is often depicted as
malnourished. He is “small and skinny for his age” (PS
20)2, is compelled to sneak into the kitchen for food (PS
27), is often imprisoned for long periods with short or no
rations (PS 26, CS 22), and ultimately realizes that although
“[t]he Dursleys had never exactly starved [him] . . . he’d
never been allowed to eat as much as he liked” (PS 92). The
paucity of Harry’s food supply is particularly stark in
constrast with the excessive abundance bestowed upon his
cousin, Dudley (De Rosa 167; Park 186). In terms of
clothing, Harry is forced to wear Dudley’s enormous handme-downs (PS 20, GF 35), and fears he’ll look like he’s
2
“wearing bits of old elephant skin” when Petunia dyes some
of Dudley’s old things in lieu of a school uniform (PS 29).
The Dursleys also fail to provide their nephew with suitable
shelter. He is relegated to a dark, spider-infested cupboard
under the stairs (PS 20); a place of exclusion replete with
unwanted items that is, from the Dursleys’ perspective, the
ideal location to store their aberrant nephew and his
scandalous school supplies (CS 8, PA 9, GF 26). Moreover,
once allocated a bedroom, he is soon incarcerated within,
fed small amounts through a cat-flap and let out only “to
use the bathroom morning and evening” (CS 21-2). Vernon
eventually attempts to banish Harry from the house
completely even though he fully comprehends the danger to
his young nephew’s life (OP 40). Finally, with regard to
Harry’s educational needs, the Dursleys discourage him
from asking questions (PS 20), withhold information
concerning his true identity (PS 42) and do everything in
their power to deny him access to the education he requires
by stealing his letters from Hogwarts (PS 31), fleeing the
house to prevent their delivery (PS 35) and locking him up
so that he can “never go back to that school” (CS 21). The
detrimental affect of this desire to prevent Harry’s access to
knowledge is particularly evident in The Chamber of
Secrets where the lack of information concerning his
wizarding relatives causes him to doubt whether he is
Slytherin’s heir (147).
In terms of their emotional maltreatment of Harry,
the Dursleys treat him as an unwanted member of the
Abbreviations refer Rowling’s books; full references can be found in
the works cited list. PS is The Philosopher’s Stone, CS is The Chamber
of Secrets, PA is The Prisoner of Azkaban, GF is The Goblet of Fire,
OP is The Order of the Phoenix, HBP is The Half-Blood Prince and
DH is The Deathly Hallows.
189
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
household, “like a dog that had rolled into something
smelly” (CS 9) and make him feel “about as welcome in
their house as dry rot” (GF 23). They openly disavow his
existence by behaving as though he were invisible (PS 22,
CS 10, PA 10), and oscillate between ignoring his birthdays
(CS 9) or presenting him with unwanted items, such as a
coat hanger or a pair of old socks (PS 36). Harry is
constantly subjected to verbal abuse and threats as evinced
when Petunia calls him a “nasty little liar” (OP 11) and
Vernon threatens to “flay him within an inch of his life”
(CS 20) or “knock the stuffing out of [him]” (PA 28). As a
result of this atrocious cruelty, Harry has a low sense of
self-worth, which is apparent in his incredulity at being
informed that he is a wizard: “instead of feeling pleased and
proud,” Harry “felt quite sure there had been a horrible
mistake. A wizard? Him? How could he possibly be? He’d
spent his life being clouted by Dudley and bullied by Aunt
Petunia and Uncle Vernon” (PS 47).
Contrary to the numerous descriptions of emotional
mistreatment in the text, there are relatively few examples
of actual physical abuse directed toward Harry.
Nevertheless, there are certain instances such as Petunia
aiming “a heavy blow at his head” with a frying pan (CS
13) and Vernon closing his “large purple hands... tightly
around [his nephew’s] throatˮ (OP 10). Most significant is
Harry’s prudent decision to “halt several steps” before
reaching Vernon because “long experience had taught him
to remain out of arm’s reach of his uncle whenever
possible” (HBP 48), which is indicative of a history of
physical violence (Provenzano and Heyman 107).
Even though the Dursleys do not play an important
part in the major plotlines of the novels, various critics of
Rowling’s series have pointed to the neglect and abuse that
Harry suffers at the hands of his despicable relatives in
order to underscore different aspects of the texts. Deborah
De Rosa, for instance, provides examples of his physical
and psychological maltreatment to demonstrate the author’s
inversion of traditional initiation paradigms (165). Jann
Lacoss and Roni Natov both claim that Rowling depicts the
Dursleys as abusive to provide “a model of how not to treat
children” (Lacoss 78; Natov 126), while Mary Pharr
describes the Dursleys as “caricatures of cruelty,
Dickensian figures” whose absurd monstrosity serves a dual
purpose in preserving the reader’s “real sympathy for
Harry” and in predisposing “him to identify with the
abused” (57). Similarly, Roberta Gellis maintains that the
family is used to “present Harry as a Cinderella archetype”
in order to invoke the readers’ familiarity with his character
(29-30). Finally, Lana Whited and Katherine Grimes
employ the Dursleys to exemplify the different stages of
Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (185-6).
One dissenting view regarding the emotional trauma that
Harry suffers is that of Julia Eccleshare, who dismisses the
significance of the young wizard’s maltreatment. She
maintains that “[he] is not physically mistreated” and “[t]he
worst he suffers is criticism and neglect,” consequently “the
190
Lauren Berman
external manifestations of [his] ill-treatment are quickly
made absurd and so less threatening” (20). However, while
the portrayal of the Dursleys’ abuse does appear at first
glance to be unrealistic and exaggerated, it is in fact the
grotesqueness of their depiction that emphasizes their threat
to Harry’s psychological development (as well as the
dangers of abuse in the real world) as they deny him one of
life’s most fundamental needs – love. Their failure to love
their nephew and provide for his emotional needs together
with their constant reminders that they hold him in
contempt and view him as nothing more than a burden
constitute an even greater danger to the boy’s well-being
than the physical abuse for which they are also responsible.
Evidence for this argument can be seen in the “most
desperate desire of [Harry’s] heart” as shown in the Mirror
of Erised,3 which is to belong to a loving family (PS 157).
Despite the critical attention that the Dursleys’
cruelty has received in numerous works, the full nature of
their animosity toward Harry has yet to be investigated in
depth, and it is possible to analyze their actions in terms of
the evil-constitutive traits suggested by Daniel M. Haybron.
Haybron has identified four traits, any of which is sufficient
to categorize a character as evil. These include: (a) an
antisympathetic nature or taking pleasure in the suffering of
others, (b) a deficit of conscience or the inability to
experience guilt, shame and remorse, (c) a surfeit of malice
or wishing misfortune on others, and (d) a dedication to
3
malevolence or a deep seeded enmity toward goodness
(133-7).
The Dursleys’ abusive conduct is compatible with
three of the abovementioned attributes. In accordance with
the first trait, several incidents illustrate that Harry’s
relatives take pleasure in his discomfort and distress. For
instance, both Harry and Dudley can imagine the ridicule to
which Harry will be subjected at school due to his atrocious
new haircut and Dudley’s reaction is to “[laugh] himself
silly” at the prospect (PS 23). Likewise, Vernon delights in
the fact that Platform 9¾ does not seem to exist and the
family, laughing with malicious glee, leaves Harry
ostensibly stranded at King’s Cross (PS 69). The most
notable example of this evil trait is seen in the Dursleys’
response to Harry’s spending hours up a tree after being
chased by Aunt Marge’s dog (PA 25). It is interesting to
note that of all the memories that flash into Harry’s mind
during his first Occlumency lesson, the one of “Ripper the
bulldog... chasing him up a tree and the Dursleys... laughing
below on the lawn” (OP 472) is singled out for comment by
Snape. As “a superb Occlumens” (OP 465), the potions
master is immediately able to sense Harry’s distress, which
highlights the profound effect of the Dursleys’ hilarity on
the young wizard’s psyche.
In terms of Haybron’s second trait, Harry’s
obnoxious relatives are also incapable of experiencing guilt,
shame or remorse for the cruelty they inflict on him.
Petunia’s fearful questioning of how “they... know where he
An anagram of the word “desire.”
191
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
sleeps” (PS 31) reflects her concern that others are aware of
their contemptible treatment of Harry and is not an
expression of guilt or shame at their actions. Similarly,
Vernon’s unsuccessful attempt at kindness when informing
Harry of his relocation to Dudley’s second bedroom (PS
33), as well as his decision to allow the boy to attend the
Quidditch World Cup (GF 35), signify fear rather than
remorse. Furthermore, Petunia and Vernon do not regret
their mistreatment of Harry even when confronted by
members of the Order of the Phoenix. In response to
Moody’s mention of the abuse, Vernon states that “it is
none of [their] business what goes on in [his] house” (OP
765) and neither Dursley denies Dumbledore’s accusation
that Harry “has suffered nothing but neglect and often
cruelty at [their] hands” (HBP 57).
With regard to the third attribute of evil, the
acrimonious atmosphere at No.4 Privet Drive supports the
idea that the Dursleys care little for Harry’s continued
existence and even wish misfortune to befall him. There are
numerous references to the fact that, at least from Harry’s
point of view, the Dursleys do not wish him to be content.
They try to keep him “as downtrodden as possible” (PA 8),
struggle against allowing him to be happy (GF 33) and
would never allow him to visit Mrs. Figg “if they’d thought
[he] enjoyed it” (OP 25). With regard to Harry’s physical
well being, he states that his aunt and uncle would not mind
if he “got lost up a chimney” (CS 41) and claims that they
would “be disappointed that the Whomping Willow hadn’t
squashed him flat” (CS 65). He also mentions that they
would be furious about all the “times [he] could’ve died”
and “didn’t manage it” (CS 251) and depressed that he is
safe with the Order of the Phoenix (OP 53). While these
comments are from Harry’s perspective, the Dursleys’
behavior when taking their final leave of their nephew is
particularly informative in terms of their own state of mind
as it emphasizes their lack of concern for the young man’s
future: Vernon is incapable of shaking his nephew’s hand
and Petunia avoids “looking at [him] altogether” (DH 37).
In contrast, Dudley expresses concern for Harry and thanks
him for saving his life (DH 38). It appears that the
Dementor attack in The Order of the Phoenix had a
significant effect on him and perhaps showed him that it
was not Harry’s abnormality that he had to fear but his own
path toward self-destruction. Thus, Rowling implies that
Dudley is capable of being redeemed while his parents have
forfeited this opportunity as indicated when Petunia finds
herself on the brink of saying something to her nephew but
is unable to say the words (DH 41).
Finally, it is suggested in the text that Harry is not the
only abused child in the series. The Occlumency sessions in
The Order of the Phoenix and Snape’s memories in The
Deathly Hallows imply that he, Snape, may have suffered
physical neglect and emotional abuse at the hands of an
overbearing father and weak-willed mother. The text
provides scant detail regarding Snape’s relationship with his
parents yet is becomes clear that their marriage was fraught
192
Lauren Berman
with tension and Snape’s memory of “a hook-nosed man...
shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired
boy cried in a corner” suggests that his father, Tobias, may
have been abusive (OP 521). Young Snape’s comment in
the seventh book that his father “doesn’t like anything”,
which includes his own son, reinforces this notion (DH
535). At the very least, the text confirms that Snape was
neglected. As a young boy of nine or ten, he has overlong
and dirty hair, and wears mismatched and shabby clothes
(DH 532). However, of greatest significance is the
narrator’s comment that young Snape conspicuously lacks
“that indefinable air of having been well cared for” (DH
538).
In sum, Harry endures a life of alienation with the
Dursleys, who fail to provide him with the loving and
nurturing environment necessary for the appropriate
physical and psychological development of a child (Mather
and Lager 124). It can be concluded that the trauma which
Harry, and perhaps Snape, suffers is similar to that of many
children in modern society and that Rowling’s message
contains a condemnation of the ravages of abuse.
The second social evil highlighted in the series is
bullying behavior, which is defined as “repeated
oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful
person by a more powerful person or group of persons”
(Rigby 15). The instances of bullying in the Harry Potter
books can be analyzed in accordance with the three major
categories offered in the Hazelden/ Johnson Institute No-
Bullying Program: physical intimidation, emotional
humiliation and harassment, and social rumor mongering
and ostracism.
193
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Table 1: Categories of bullying adapted from the No-Bullying program
Levels
1
Verbal
Taunts
Expressions
of physical
superiority
2
Threats of
physical
harm
3
Repeated
and/or
graphic
threats
Extortion
Physical
Nonverbal
Threatening
gestures
Defacing property
Pushing/ Shoving
Taking small items
Property damage
Stealing
Initiating fights
Causing falls
Assault
Destruction of
property
Fire setting
Physical cruelty
Repeated violent,
threatening gestures
Assault with a
weapon
Emotional
Verbal
Nonverbal
Insulting remarks
Dirty Looks
Name calling
Insulting gestures
Teasing
Social
Verbal
Gossiping
Starting/ spreading
rumors
Public teasing
Nonverbal
Passive exclusion
Playing mean tricks
Insulting family,
intelligence,
athletic ability etc.
Defacing/ falsifying
schoolwork
Defacing personal
property
Insulting race, gender
Increasing gossip/rumors
Undermining other
relationships
Making someone look
foolish
Group exclusion
Challenging in
public
Ostracizing
Destruction of Personal
property
Threats of total group
exclusion
Public humiliation
Total group
rejection/ostracizing
194
Lauren Berman
The first bully introduced in the narrative is Harry’s
cousin, Dudley Dursley. An analysis of Dudley’s actions
based on the categories and levels described in the chart
above demonstrates that in the first installment of the series,
he mainly exhibits level 2 and 3 behaviors associated with
physical intimidation. For instance, Dudley’s penchant for
physical cruelty appears early in life when, during Harry's
first weeks at the Dursleys, he takes pleasure in prodding
and pinching his cousin (PS 18). As the tale progresses,
readers learn that Harry has become Dudley’s “favorite
punch-bag” (PS 20) and his preferred sport is “Harryhunting” (PS 28). At this time, Dudley is also responsible
for social bullying at the same levels as that of his parents
as indicated by his desire to exclude Harry from the family
trip to the zoo (PS 22) and the fact that Harry is ostracized
at school because “everyone knew that Dudley’s gang hated
that odd Harry Potter ... and nobody liked to disagree with
Dudley’s gang” (PS 27). However, once Dudley learns of
his cousin’s powers, the tenor of his behavior decreases to
level 1 and he limits himself to verbal taunts regarding
Harry’s lack of friends (CS 12) and his nightmares of
Cedric’s death (OP 19). It should be noted that by the time
we have reached The Order of the Phoenix, the 5th book in
the series, Harry has learned to respond to Dudley’s insults
with taunts of his own (OP 17). Nevertheless, the fact that
Dudley is physically larger and capable of defending
himself by hitting Harry (OP 21) indicates that the Harry’s
behavior cannot be classified as bullying in terms of
Rigby’s definition (15). Moreover, despite the animosity
between them, Harry’s first instinct is to save his cousin
from the Dementors and this action ultimately leads to
Dudley expressing remorse for the way he has treated Harry
in the past – the cup of tea that Harry had initially thought
was “Dudley’s idea of a clever booby trap” (DH 19).
Harry’s experiences with his cousin enable him to
easily identify the next bully he encounters, namely Draco
Malfoy (PS 60). While Dudley epitomizes the physical
bully who spends his evenings “vandalizing the play park,
smoking on street corners and throwing stones at passing
cars and children (OP 8), Harry’s schoolyard nemesis is a
more refined verbal bully who, in Rowling’s words, “knows
exactly what will hurt people”1. Thus, the majority of
Draco’s social and emotional taunts (belonging to levels 1
and 2) are deliberately aimed at his victims’ specific
weaknesses, such as Ron’s poverty, Hermione’s blood
status, and the insecure feelings/ fears of Neville and Harry.
One of the means by which Rowling reflects different
aspects of social class is through Draco’s bullying. For
instance, his frequent insults regarding the Weasleys’
financial situation, such as the comment that they are
known for having “more children than they can afford” (PS
81) and his comparing the family’s ramshackle house with
Hagrid’s hut (PS 144) or the Shrieking Shack (PA 303),
establish notions of social class based on wealth. In
addition, Draco’s taunts introduce the concept of social
1
195
WBUR radio interview, October 12th, 1999.
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
intelligence (PS 222, CS 166). From Draco’s perspective,
Crabbe and Goyle constitute a receptive audience for his
cruel wit and spiteful attitudes, and he also benefits from
the physical protection that their size offers (Thorsrud 43).
Moreover, their thuggish support emboldens him in his
confrontations with Harry (Eccleshare 23) and bolsters his
own sense of superiority for he views them as beneath him
in both intelligence and social standing. This is implied in
their first scene where Draco introduces them “carelessly”
as if they were a mere afterthought (PS 81). The description
of Crabbe and Goyle as people who “exist to do Malfoy’s
bidding” suggests that they function as extensions of his
bullying personality. However, beginning with the sixth
installment, Draco’s influence over his cronies appears to
be wavering, especially with Crabbe, who questions Draco
over his orders (HBP 358) and refuses to do his bidding
once he realizes that Lucius has lost his standing amongst
the Death Eaters (DH 506).
It is important to note that on the rare occasion that
Draco does assault someone, his target is either physically
weaker than himself or incapacitated in some way. For
example, Neville Longbottom, whom Draco refers to as
“the great lump” (PS 110), is often the recipient of Draco’s
physical harassment as evinced when he takes Neville’s
Remembrall with the intention of leaving it up a tree for
him to retrieve (PS 110), subjects him to the Leg-Locker
Curse (PS 60), and sneaks up behind him in the Forbidden
Forest for a joke (PS 186). Moreover, unlike Dudley who is
elitism. For example, upon discovering in The Goblet of
Fire that Ron has no knowledge of the upcoming Triwizard
tournament at Hogwarts, Draco mocks Arthur Weasley’s
position at the Ministry by claiming that he is “too junior to
know about it” and those in power “probably don’t talk
about important stuff in front of him” (150). This derision
continues in The Order of the Phoenix where he comments
on Arthur’s lack of influence at the Ministry and claims
“they’ve been looking for an excuse to sack [him] for
years” (321). Similarly, Draco repeated insults referring to
Hermione’s blood status, such as calling her “a filthy
Mudblood” (CS 86) or a “long-molared Mudblood” (GF
351), or stating that she smells by virtue of being a
Mudblood (HBP 110), highlight one of the most significant
themes of evil in the series, namely the tensions in the text
based on race.
The fact that Draco lacks physical presence may
explain his association with two characters that are
mentioned only in connection with his activities, namely
Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle. These two acolytes
sycophantically follow Draco’s lead and serve as his
bodyguards (PS 81, CS 76, PA 131, OP 321) and/ or
lookouts (GF 529, HBP 359, 426), but do not appear to
have individual personalities and do not even speak until
the end of the final novel (DH 505). Throughout the first
installments, they join in Draco’s harassment of other
students, perhaps because his malicious sense of humor
appeals to their baser instincts and lower levels of
196
Lauren Berman
Philosopher’s Stone, he has no compunction against using
his knowledge concerning Hagrid’s dragon to torment Ron
(174) and to make trouble for Harry (176). He is also
“thoroughly pleased” with his role in the death of an
innocent creature (PA 341), and demonstrates a reckless
disregard for the lives of others in his inept attempts at
killing Dumbledore, for it is sheer luck that no one dies as a
result of his exploits (HBP 547). It can be argued that
Draco’s crying to Moaning Myrtle (HBP 488) and his
apparent struggle with the decision to kill the headmaster
(HBP 552) constitute evidence of a conscience, or even the
author’s attempt to portray him as capable of redemption as
she does in the case of Dudley Dursley. However, two facts
negate this possibility. First, his tears in the bathroom
reflect his fear of failing the Dark Lord rather than remorse,
and second, his procrastination atop the tower reveals that
he lacks both the courage and the fortitude to choose right
over wrong. These examples together with his despicable
comment regarding Cedric’s death at the end of The Goblet
of Fire (632) and his declaration of fealty to the Death
Eaters after Harry rescues him from the fiendfyre (DH 518)
emphasize Draco’s inability to feel shame or regret at his
malicious actions and nullify the idea that he is ultimately
reformed. The argument that Draco is reformed at the end
of the series because he acknowledges Harry in the epilogue
is problematic as there is no evidence in the text that he ever
made the right choices. Moreover, his survival can be
physically intimidating in his own right, Draco feels
comfortable accosting Harry only when he is accompanied
by his two thickset sidekicks, Crabbe and Goyle (PS 81, OP
761), or when Harry is first paralyzed by a full-body bind
hex (HBP 146).
In addition, Draco’s actions can be classified in
accordance with the first three evil-constitutive traits
delineated in Haybron’s article. His antisympathetic nature
is evident as early as his initial encounter with Harry, where
he demonstrates a complete lack of sympathy upon learning
that the Potters are dead and is overly concerned with their
blood status (PS 60-1). Nonetheless, the most noteworthy
examples of Draco’s antisympathetic tendencies appear in
The Prisoner of Azkaban in the form of his constant
mockery of Harry’s anguish resulting from the Dementors’
presence. He badgers Harry mercilessly over his collapse on
the Hogwarts Express (PA 98, 107, 110, 166, 173) and is
“almost beside himself with glee” at Gryffindor’s Quidditch
defeat even though Harry might have been killed when the
Dementors converged on him (PA 201). Draco’s sadistic
pleasure in the pain of others is not limited to Harry. He
bursts into laughter at the sight of Neville’s tear-streaked
face after his fall from a broom (PS 110), rejoices in
Hagrid’s distress over Buckbeak’s impending execution
(PA 317) and relishes the Death Eaters’ attack on the
Muggles at the Quidditch World Cup (GF 110).
Draco’s behavior is also in line with Haybron’s
second trait: a deficit of conscience. For example, in The
197
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
explained as a consequence of his mother’s choice in the
Forbidden Forest rather than his own.
Furthermore, Draco exhibits the third trait, a surfeit
of malice, at several points throughout the series. In both
The Philosopher’s Stone and The Half-Blood Prince, young
Malfoy lures people to a certain location for the purpose of
harming them. In the first instance, he challenges Harry to a
midnight duel in order to have him caught and expelled (PS
114) and on the second occasion, draws Dumbledore to the
tower using a Dark Mark with the goal of murdering him
(HBP 551). It is interesting to note that in both cases, Draco
chooses to allow another to actually carry out the “dirty
work”: Filch in Book One and Snape in Book Six. In The
Chamber of Secrets, Draco’s hostility toward others
manifests itself in his appreciation for the Heir of
Slytherin’s desire to rid the school of Muggle-borns. He
“thoroughly [enjoys] the atmosphere of terror and
suspicion” caused by the petrifactions (198) and reacts to
Filch’s petrified cat with the spiteful warning: “You’ll be
next, Mudbloods!” (106). He even declares his wish to help
the heir (166), hopes that Hermione becomes one of the
victims (167) and is disappointed when she doesn’t die
(198). Following Voldemort’s return in The Goblet of Fire,
Draco gleefully anticipates a wizarding world in which
those of impure blood will be annihilated (632) and in The
Order of the Phoenix takes advantage of the opportunity to
exercise authority over those he dislikes as a member of the
despicable Inquisitorial Squad (551).
It is evident from Draco’s relationship with his father
that his bullying is an acquired rather than an innate
behavior. Draco has been taught to equate wealth and status
with power and prerogative and believes, on the basis of
Lucius’s exemplar, that he has the right to manipulate and
intimidate others without censure. For instance, Draco’s
constant derision of Ron’s family can be connected to his
observations of Lucius’s derogatory attitude toward Arthur
Weasley in The Chamber of Secrets (51). Likewise, Draco’s
knowledge of his father’s tactics leads him to gloat over the
headmaster’s suspension: “I always thought father might be
the one who got rid of Dumbledore” (198), and convinces
him that Buckbeak, the Hippogriff, will definitely be
executed (PA 341). Further, the steps that Draco takes in
The Half-Blood Prince to ensure Mr. Borgin’s cooperation,
such as mentioning that Fenrir Greyback will “be dropping
in from time to time” to keep tabs on the shopkeeper (121),
best exemplify his emulation of Lucius’s methods as
suggested when the terrified Borgin “[makes] a bow as deep
as the one Harry had once seen him give to Lucius Malfoy”
(122). It is nevertheless interesting to note that by the end of
this installment and the beginning of the next, Draco
appears disappointed with his father. He strides away
quickly when Snape mentions Lucius’s capture and
imprisonment (303) and is forced to look to his mother for
the guidance his father fails to provide (DH 16). These
events indicate a turning point in the development of
Draco’s personality as they suggest that his choices are no
198
Lauren Berman
the penseive,2 to re-evaluate their “cherished ideas about
[Harry’s] heroic father and godfather” (117) for their
ethically suspect behavior complicates the moral schema of
the books and highlights the ambiguity of good and evil.
Moreover, the characterization of James and Sirius as
tyrannical bullies, who demean Snape for their own
amusement, compels the reader to acknowledge the
capacity for evil within an essentially good person and by
extension within himself or herself.
In sum, Rowling's inclusion of these characters
together with the other negatively drawn bullies, such as
Dudley Dursley, the Malfoys and the Slytherins, not only
emphasizes the proliferation of bullying in today’s society
but also illustrates the serious long-term consequences of
this type of behavior, a point reinforced by Dumbledore in
The Order of the Phoenix when he states “that some
wounds run too deep for the healing” (735).
The final social evil dealt with in Rowling’ series
concerns the issue of slavery, which is presented with the
introduction of Dobby and the house-elves in general.3
House-elves are a magical species set apart by their
condition of absolute servitude as these creatures are
“bound to serve one house and family for ever” and cannot
longer defined by his need for paternal affirmation.
Furthermore, Draco’s upbringing does not absolve him of
culpability as, in Dumbledore’s words, “[it] is our choices...
that show what we truly are” (CS 245), and young Malfoy
illustrates this most decisively in The Deathly Hallows
when he decides to seek Harry out during the battle of
Hogwarts and take him to Lord Voldemort (505).
Finally, Harry’s editorial comment in The
Philosopher’s Stone that he hates Draco more than Dudley
(107) and his claim in The Chamber of Secrets that Draco
makes Dudley “look like a kind, thoughtful and sensitive
boy” (27) are also significant as they not only foreshadow
Dudley’s eventual redemption but illustrate the author’s
point that social and emotional bullying can be viewed as
more detrimental than physical intimidation.
It should be noted that even though the majority of
characters guilty of bullying in the Harry Potter series are
considered evil, one of the most wrenching illustrations of
this social evil in the books is carried out by two supposed
representatives of good, namely Sirius Black and James
Potter. Sirius and James’s assault on Snape amalgamates
each of the different types of bullying in the No-Bullying
Program chart above. They call him names, such as
“Snivellus” or “Snivelly” (OP 569), attack him physically
with an assortment of spells and humiliate him in public by
suspending him upside-down in the air and exposing his
graying underpants (OP 571). According to Kate Behr,
Harry and the reader are forced, after viewing this scene in
2
3
199
The magical object that allows wizard to store their memories outside
of their minds.
Slavery in the Wizarding World can be viewed as an invisible evil due
to the fact that the community accepts it without question even when
Hermione draws attention to it.
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
escape their condition, as they “must be set free” by their
masters (CS 16).
Much has been written about the plight of the houseelves, especially with regard to Rowling’s seemingly
problematic attitude toward slavery and the fact that
everyone in the text, except Hermione, seems comfortable
with the apparently “natural” subjugation of the house-elves
(Carey 103; Mendlesohn 180; Ostry 96; Patterson 105;
Westman 325-7) (see below for an analysis of S.P.E.W.).4, 5
Nevertheless, there has been little discussion regarding the
origins of these creatures’ enslavement. In a lecture entitled
“Blood, Race and Prejudice: Racism and Anti-racism in
Tolkien and Rowling” given at the Mythopia conference in
August 2008, Reuben Nave argued that the house-elves'
desire to serve is an innate characteristic of their species,
and in her article, “Accepting Mudbloods,” Elaine Ostry
also claims that the house-elves have an “essential slave
nature” and “seem destined for lower status” (96). Evidence
for this argument is based on textual indications that the
house-elves’ bondage is “natural.” For instance, Winky
views freedom as unnatural and believes that Dobby’s
desire to be paid “is unbecoming to a house-elf” (GF 90).
Moreover, Ron’s claim that house-elves “like being
enslaved” (GF 198) and Hagrid’s statement that to give
them rights would be to do “em an unkindness” because
4
5
“[i]t’s in their nature ter look after humans” (GF 233)
speaks to the notion of a race devoted to servitude. Nave
also argues that the example of one house-elf who wishes to
leave the service of an abusive master is insufficient
evidence to suggest that the house-elves' enslavement is not
a condition of their race. However, the fact that Dobby is
the focus of attention suggests that he is the exception that
proves the rule, namely that the house-elves are endowed
with free will and may choose to defy their masters thereby
indicating that their enslavement is not innate.
Thus, the house-elves' indentured status is not an
inborn trait but the result of a magical enchantment placed
upon them by wizards. This line of reasoning is confirmed
by the fact that the house-elves' freedom is contingent on
the magical edict that they be given clothes (CS 133, GF
124), which suggests that the source of their bondage is
magical as well. Moreover, in the words of Albus
Dumbledore, house-elves are “bound by the enchantments
of [their] kind” (OP 732), which explains Winky’s inability
to defend herself against charges of wand use, for she is
magically bound to conceal her master’s secrets (GF 120).
It also clarifies another characteristic of the house-elves'
subjugation, namely that they are literally tied to their
masters' houses. As George states: “[h]ouse-elves come
with big manors and castles” (CS 28) and Kreacher is
compelled to obey Harry despite his adamant objections
because the recalcitrant elf is literally tied to the young
wizard’s inheritance: No.12 Grimmauld Place (HBP 54).
Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare.
The wizard community’s calm acceptance of the house-elves’ slavery
as ‘natural’ also has a racial component.
200
Lauren Berman
Lucius’s self-perception is revealed in his fury at the loss of
his servant (CS 248).
Hegel’s argument is also illustrated in the text by
additional master/ house-elf relationships, namely those of
Barty Crouch Sr. and Winky as well as Sirius Black and
Kreacher. Similar to Lucius Malfoy, Crouch Sr. holds the
view that it is a house-elf's duty to uphold the family’s
honor and in this manner consolidate its master’s standing
(GF 331). Thus, when aspersions are cast upon Winkyʼs
name, Crouch Sr. perceives them as a personal affront to his
own character (GF 122) and dismisses her because by
exposing him to social censure she has failed in her duty to
protect her master’s position (GF 124, 596). Sirius’s
rejection of Kreacher also reflects a certain aspect of his
identity i.e., his distaste for the Black family’s “pure-blood
mania” (OP 104). In this respect, Kreacher’s assimilation of
the family’s racial prejudices (OP 100) serves as a constant
reminder of everything Sirius despises about his origins;
and it can be argued that in this case the slave’s existence
does not reify the master’s identity but reinforces his
negative view of himself.
Robert Williams claims that the master/ slave
dialectic results in the master undermining himself because
the source of his self-perception is a dependent being and
relies on coercion (167). Furthermore, according to
Williams, the slave succeeds in attaining self-awareness
through servitude when he “works off his fear of death”
which led to his subjugation, and “becomes able to
Finally, it is made clear in the text that the enchantment
binding house-elves to their masters is not sufficient to
override their free will and autonomous thought. Thus,
Dobby can deliver a warning to Harry against his master’s
wishes (CS 16) and Kreacher can resist Sirius’s attempts to
rid the house of Dark artifacts (OP 108).
The house-elves' enslavement can also be analyzed in
terms of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. Hegel believed that
the individual attains self-awareness through the mediation
of another’s self-consciousness (Williams 165), and argued
this point via a demonstration of the master/ slave
relationship in which the master achieves self-realization by
“coercing the slave’s recognition” (Williams 167).
Accordingly, each master/ house-elf relationship in the
Harry Potter novels establishes that the master’s identity is
contingent upon the slave’s acknowledgement. For
example, even though the Malfoys' elitist identity is
seemingly attributable to their belief in the superiority of
their blood and not their ownership of a servile house-elf, it
can be argued that Lucius’s subjugation of Dobby
constitutes an additional method for solidifying his identity
as an influential wizard given that house-elves possess
tremendous magical abilities and those who control them
have access to their powers. Consequently, the Malfoys
have always been careful not to give Dobby clothes, for his
freedom would diminish their status (CS 133). Moreover,
the extent to which the master/ slave dialectic defines
201
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
challenge the master” (167). The ability of both Dobby and
Kreacher to work against their masters' interests exemplifies
these points.
In The Chamber of Secrets, Dobby seeks Harry out to
warn him of a plot involving the Malfoys (16) and manages
to overcome his terror of his abusive master in order to hint
to Harry that Lucius is responsible for opening the chamber
(246). Likewise, in The Order of the Phoenix, Dobby’s
new-found freedom enables him to protect Harry and
challenge Umbridge’s authority even though she induces
great fear in the elf (OP 535). The fact that following his
liberation Dobby still indulges in episodes of selfpunishment (GF 332) and “finds it difficult to speak ill of
his old masters” (HBP 423) reveals that he continues to
follow the “internalized logic of bondage” that characterizes
the house-elves (Carey 104). However, Dobby is eventually
able to openly “defy [his] masters” and proudly declares
that he “has no master” and is “a free elf” (DH 384), which
indicates that he does finally attain complete selfawareness.
In contrast, Kreacher’s defiance is more complex due
to the conflict between his loyalty to the House of Black
and his hatred of one of its members, Sirius. To begin with,
unlike Dobby, Kreacher’s identity is completely defined by
his servitude as evinced by “his life’s ambition” which is
“to have his head cut off and stuck up on a plaque just like
his mother” (OP 72). However, although his enslavement
dictates that he serve Sirius, Kreacher feels only contempt
for the “nasty ungrateful swine who broke his mother’s
heart” (OP 102). The elf presents the façade of being
helpless and demented but is, in fact, quite devious and
secretive (OP 95, 101, 456). Thus, when Sirius shouts at
him to get out (OP 420), Kreacher interprets this to mean
leave the house and betrays his master by following the
instructions of “the only Black family member for whom he
[has] any respect,” Narcissa Malfoy (OP 731).
Contrary to Dobby and Kreacher, Winky does not
approve of the concept of freedom and says that Dobby has
“[i]deas above his station” (GF 89). She does not challenge
her master and is forcibly liberated against her will (GF
124). Her identity, likes and dislikes are shaped by those of
her master as indicated by her aversion to Ludo Bagman
whom she considers “a very bad wizard” because her
“master isn’t liking him” (GF 333). Moreover, Winky’s
sense of self-worth is associated with her duty as Crouch
Sr.’s elf and when her connection to him is lost, she
neglects her appearance (GF 229) and descends into
alcoholism (GF 466). She is “properly ashamed of being
free” and refuses to speak out against her master when
Hermione accuses him of maltreatment, despite the fact that
she is no longer bound to him: “You is not insulting Mr.
Crouch! Mr. Crouch is a good wizard, miss! Mr. Crouch is
right to sack bad Winky!” (GF 331). It is interesting to note
that Winky’s role in the Crouch household was not
inconsequential as she was privy to many of her master’s
secrets (GF 466) and was able to persuade him to give
202
Lauren Berman
Barty Jr.’s “occasional treats” because she “pitied [him]”
(GF 594). These facts are indicative of a reversal of the
typical master/ slave relationship. Nevertheless, Winky’s
distress at Barty Jr. divulging his father’s secrets (GF 594)
and her continued drinking even after Crouch Sr.’s death
(OP 343) illustrate that she does not attain the measure of
self-awareness necessary to challenge her master.
Finally, Williams states that Hegel was not interested
in “inverting the master/ slave relationship, but in
overcoming its inequality” (167). Hence, for Hegel, true
freedom and identity can be realized only through mutual
acceptance and the renunciation of coercion, for it is only
when the slave is free that the master is truly free (Williams
176). Consequently, the house-elf owners' inability to
accept their elves' equality and to view them as creatures
worthy of respect inhibits their own identities and
ultimately leads to their downfall. For the Malfoys, the loss
of Dobby initiates a chain reaction that culminates in the
deterioration of their prominence and by extension their
self-important view of themselves. Crouch Sr. is also
undermined as a result of his cruel treatment of Winky for it
can be argued that his physical and mental decline
originated with her absence, which enabled Lord Voldemort
to place him under the Imperius curse (GF 597). Lastly,
Sirius suffers the consequences of regarding Kreacher “as a
servant unworthy of interest or notice” when he pays with
his life (OP 735). In sum, regardless of the circumstances,
each of these cases proves that a master’s coercion of his
slave results in his defeat.
Hegel’s view of freedom and equality is also
apparent in Rowling’s delineation of Harry’s relationships
with the various house-elves in the text. Not only is the boy
responsible for Dobby’s freedom in The Chamber of
Secrets (248) but the elf’s subsequent allegiance and
assistance in later installments (GF 426, OP 343, HBP 394,
DH 379) appears to date from the moment Harry asks the
elf to sit down “like an equal” (CS 16). Moreover, when
Harry digs Dobby’s grave by hand and mourns the elf, he is
able to block Voldemort from his psyche and makes the
crucial choice of Horcruxes over Hallows. In other words,
he takes control of his own identity and destiny (DH 387).
In addition, when he first inherits Kreacher and compels the
elf to act on his behalf, Harry is provided with useless
information (HBP 423) but is rewarded with voluntary
service when he accepts Kreacher and treats him with
respect (DH 165, 181).
As previously mentioned, the academic literature has
mainly focused on Rowling’s use of Hermione and the
house-elves to comment on and protest against slavery.6
Brycchan Carey, author of “Hermione and the House-Elves:
The Literary and Historical Contexts of J.K. Rowling’s
6
203
The following survey of the scholarship on the ambiguities of
Rowling’s depictions of slavery underscore the author’s point that the
enslavement of the House-Elves is widely accepted in the Wizarding
World and as such constitutes an invisible evil.
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Antislavery Campaign,” is of the opinion that “a significant
aspect of Rowling’s project is the promotion of political
participation for young people and, rather than be narrowly
prescriptive, she instead offers a range of political models
for young people to explore and emulate” (106). Hence, it is
through Hermione’s quest to emancipate the house-elves in
the form of her political pressure group, S.P.E.W., that
Rowling enables her readers to consider the importance of
freedom and the pursuit of justice for the weak and
underprivileged.
Farah Mendlesohn in “Crowning the King: Harry
Potter and the Construction of Authority” is extremely
critical of the manner in which Rowling portrays the houseelves. She maintains that Hermione’s S.P.E.W. campaign is
“undermined at every turn with arguments straight from the
American antebellum south” (180). For instance, the image
of the house-elves as content with their enslavement and
even resentful of freedom alludes to historical perceptions
of slaves as “happy, simple souls who merely wish to serve
their families” (179). This notion is reinforced in the text by
Nearly Headless Nick’s statement that “House-elves don’t
want sick leave and pensions” (GF 161) and Ron’s
argument that Winky likes “being bossed around” (GF
112). Mendlesohn also notes that Hermione herself
undermines her indictment of the house-elf system for “her
assertion that the elves are brainwashed (GF 211) makes
her look silly and undercuts her basic argument” (180).
Similarly, Elaine Ostry writes that “Rowling’s social vision
is ambivalent” and criticizes the author’s failure fully to
expose social injustice via S.P.E.W. because Hermione’s
activism is met with mockery and disdain even by the main
protagonist (96).
In “Specters of Thatcherism: Contemporary British
Culture in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series,” Karin
Westman points to the paternalistic aspects of Hermione’s
efforts. She claims that S.P.E.W. provides a satirical look at
the numerous extreme left-wing organizations that force
their own cultural values onto those they seek to help (325)
and, like Mendlesohn, Westman states that Hermione’s
view of the elves as “uneducated and brainwashed” is
indicative of her inability “to consider her own class
presumptions in knowing what is best for the house-elves”
(327). Hence, Hermione’s attempts to free the house-elves
through trickery (OP 230) can be interpreted as constituting
another form of oppression for she seeks to impose on them
her own values and beliefs.
Finally, Steven Patterson in “Kreacher’s Lament:
S.P.E.W. as a Parable on Discrimination, Indifference, and
Social Justice” discusses whether the widespread
indifference to prejudice at Hogwarts is as morally
damaging as prejudice itself (110). He puts forward and
then negates each of the arguments suggesting the
permissability of indifference. First, according to Patterson,
the claim that house-elf enslavement is a lesser evil
compared to the threat posed by Lord Voldemort is nullified
because the fight against social injustice is merely “another
204
Lauren Berman
front in the struggle against the greater evils in the world”
(114). For example, in The Order of the Phoenix,
Dumbledore equates “indifference and neglect with
mistreatment and abuse” and explains that wizards are
paying the price for their maltreatment of the house-elves
(115). Thus, a society that is indifferent to prejudice “finds
itself weakened in the face of its adversaries” (116).
Second, the contention that people cannot be expected to
remedy every injustice is false because humanity is
responsible for slavery and as such has a duty to rectify it
(113). Finally, the idea that the house-elves seem content
with their enslavement and should have their autonomy
respected is explained by the phenomenon that groups
exposed to extended periods of prejudice often internalize
the image that their oppressors have of them and their
resulting lack of self-respect inhibits their desire for
freedom. Thus, Patterson argues that the house-elves'
“resistance to freedom is an indication not of the depths of
their hearts' desire but of the depth of their bondage” (112).
This can be related to the psychological facets of slavery
discussed by other critics. Carey, for instance, maintains
that the elves “have been enslaved for so long that they
have lost the ability to conceive of themselves as free”
(104), while Ostry suggests that their distress at the
prospect of freedom illustrates “the depth of false
consciousness in elf culture” (96).
A number of critics also emphasize that even though
Rowling does not advocate or condone slavery, her
portrayal of the house-elves and the wizarding community’s
response to Hermione’s burgeoning political activism is
inconsistent and ambiguous (Mendlesohn 181; Westman
326). For example, the unfortunate acronym for Hermione’s
movement (S.P.E.W.) implies a certain degree of authorial
ambivalence toward the campaign and her efforts open her
up “to ridicule and misinterpretation” (Carey 106).
In conclusion, while some of the abovementioned
points are valid, it should be noted that the criticism leveled
against Rowling for allowing the issue of slavery to peter
out without resolution is undue (Eccleshare 82; Mendlesohn
179; Westman 327). It is unreasonable to expect any author
to solve an issue as complex as slavery which philosophers,
educators and politicians have been struggling with for
centuries. Moreover, it can be argued that by not offering
straightforward solutions and easy answers, Rowling
provides her readers with the opportunity to consider the
issues for themselves and to draw their own moral and
ethical conclusions.
Works Cited
Behr,
205
Kate.
""Same-As-Difference":
Narrative
Transformations and Intersecting Cultures in Harry
Potter." Journal of Narrative Theory 35.1(2005):
112-32. Print.
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Carey, Brycchan. "Hermione and the House-Elves: The
Literary and Historical Contexts of J. K. Rowling's
Antislavery Campaign." Reading Harry Potter:
Critical Essays. Ed. Giselle Liza Anatol. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003. 103-15. Print.
Carter, Yvonne H. "Lessons from the past, learning for the
future: Safeguarding children in primary care."
British Journal of General Practice 57(2007): 23842.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. What is child abuse
and neglect? Washington, DC: U.S Department of
Health and Human Services, 2008. Print.
De Rosa, Deborah. "Wizardly Challenges to and
Affirmation of the Initiation Paradigm in Harry
Potter." Harry Potter's World: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives. Ed. Elizabeth E Heilman. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer, 2003. 163-84. Print.
Eccleshare, Julia. Guide to the Harry Potter Novels.
London: Continuum , 2002. Print.
Gellis, Roberta. "The Dursleys as Social Commentary."
Mapping the World of Harry Potter. Ed. Mercedes
Lackey. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2006. 27-38.
Print.
Haybron, Daniel. "Evil characters." American Philosophical
Quarterly 36.2 (1999): 131-43. Print.
Lacoss, Jann. "Of Magic and Muggles: Reversals and
Revulsions at Hogwarts." The Ivory Tower and Harry
Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon. Ed.
Lana A Whited. Columbia, MO: University of
Missouri Press, 2002. 67-88. Print.
Mather, Jannah Hurn and Lager, Patricia B. Child Welfare:
A Unifying Model of Practice. Stamford, CT: Brooks
Cole/Thompson Learning, 2003. Print.
Mendlesohn, Farah. "Crowning the King." The Ivory Tower
and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary
Phenomenon. Ed. Lana A Whited. Columbia, MO:
University of Missouri Press, 2002. 159-81.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
2006.
Web.
<http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/aboutthenspcc/
historyofnspcc/historyofnspcc_wda33149.html>
Natov, Roni. "Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the
Ordinary." The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter:
Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon. Ed. Lana A.
Whited. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri
Press, 2002. 125-39. Print.
Nave, Reuben. "Blood, Race and Prejudice: Racism and
Anit-racism in Tolkien and Rowling." Mythopia
2008. Tel-Aviv, Israel, August 2008. Print.
O'Brien, Shirley. Child Abuse: A Crying Shame. Provo:
Bringham Young University Press, 1980. Print.
Ostry, Elaine. "Accepting Mudbloods: The Ambivalent
Social Vision of J. K. Rowling's Fairy Tales."
Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays. Ed. Giselle
Liza Anatol. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003.
89-101. Print.
206
Lauren Berman
Park, Julia. "Class and Socioeconomic Identity in Harry
Potter's England." Reading Harry Potter: Critical
Essays. Ed. Giselle Lisa Anatol. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2003. 179-89. Print.
Patterson, Steven W. "Kreacher's Lament: S.P.E.W. as a
Parable on Discrimination, Indifference, and Social
Justice." Philosophy and Harry Potter: If Aristotle
Ran Hogwarts. Ed. David Baggett and Shawn E
Klein. Chicago and LaSalle: Open Court, 2004. 10517. Print.
Pharr, Mary. "In media res: Harry Potter as hero in
progress." The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter:
Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon. Ed. Lana A
Whited. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri
Press, 2002. 53-66. Print.
Provenzano, Danielle M. and Heyman, Richard E. "Harry
Potter and the Resilience to Adversity." The
Psychology of Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland.
Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2006. 105-19. Print.
Rigby, Ken. Bullying in Schools: What to do about it.
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Research Ltd., 1996. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone.
London: Bloomsbury, 1997. Print.
---. Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets. London:
Bloomsbury, 1998. Print.
---. Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban. London:
Bloomsbury, 1999. Print.
---. The Connection. with Christopher Lydon. WBUR
Radio. 12 October 1999.
---. Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. London:
Bloomsbury, 2000. Print.
---. Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix. London:
Bloomsbury, 2003. Print.
---. Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince. London:
Bloomsbury, 2005. Print.
---. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows. London:
Bloomsbury, 2007. Print.
Thorsrud, Harald. "Voldemort's Agents, Malfoy's Cronies,
and Hagrid's Chums: Friendship in Harry Potter."
Harry Potter and Philosophy. Ed. David Baggett and
Shawn E Klein. Chicago and LaSalle: Open Court,
2004. 38-48. Print.
Title, Beverly B. and Bitney, James. No Bullying Program
Directors Manual. Center City: Hazelden/ Johnson
Institute, 2001. Print.
Westman, Karin E. "Specters of Thatcherism:
Contemporary British Culture in J.K. Rowling's
Harry Potter Series." The Ivory Tower and Harry
Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon. Ed.
Lana A Whited. Columbia, MO: University of
Missouri Press, 2002. 305-28. Print.
Whited, Lana A. and Grimes, Katherine M. "What Would
Harry Do? J.K. Rowling and Lawrence Kohlberg's
Theories of Moral Development." The Ivory Tower
and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary
207
The Invisible Evils in Harry Potter
Phenomenon. Ed. Lana A Whited. Columbia, MO:
University of Missouri Press, 2002. 182-208. Print.
Williams, Robert R. "Hegel and Nietzsche: Recognition and
Master/Slave." Philosophy Today (2001): 164-79.
Print.
208