The Fountain Told a Lie: Dumbledore’s Deconstruction of the Wizarding World

by Travis

I promised folks at Prophecy 2007 that I’d get this post up before the end of August. I apologize for the terrible delay. This is the content of my discussion at Prophecy 2007.

At Lumos 2006, and in his book Unlocking Harry Potter, John Granger enumerated the evidence that J.K. Rowling has written distinctly postmodern literature in the Harry Potter series. John writes:

The fictional world she has created is a troubled place whose Grand Narrative excludes groups from power in its mythology and imposed rational order, the hierarchy of blood, wealth, and race. (Granger 6)

The postmodern nature of the books is one of the many things that causes it to resonate so deeply with readers. But what exactly is postmodernism? It’s by no means an easy concept to wrap one’s mind around, and pop expressions of postmodernism do its complexity no justice whatsoever. One tires quickly of hearing things like, “Postmodernism just means everything is relative and that there’s no absolute truth.” The best way to begin wrapping our minds around this subject is to observe the definition of postmodernism as given by Jean-Francois Lyotard in The Postmodern Condition:

I will use the term modern to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse and making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth. For example, the rule of consensus between the sender and the addressee of a statement with truth-value is deemed acceptable if it is cast in terms of a possible unanimity between rational minds: this is the Enlightenment narrative, in which the hero knowledge works toward a good ethico-political end- universal peace…Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives (xxiii-xxiv).

It’s crucial to understand what Lyotard is and is not saying about metanarratives here. The metanarratives against which postmoderns argue are not any and all grand, large-scale stories. They are stories that legitimate themselves autonomously. The Enlightenment Project is the foundation for this: In interests of human universal peace and prosperity, the Enlightenment Project seeks the rational answers found in human science and philosophical discourse which will lead us to a proper human morality.
What happens when rational minds can’t come to agreement on the best ways to achieve universal human peace? The ones with the power get the final say, and the ones without the power get oppressed. Since all the language is centered in quests for world peace and prosperity, the people in power deceive themselves into thinking that the oppression of anything that gets in the way of their own methodology of attaining said peace is justified, because the cause is noble. The justification for the oppression is inherently built into the lofty language of the stated goals.
A troubling example of this is the misuse of the so-called “American Dream.” Why is there such widespread economic disparity between races in America? Too frequently, we hear a very simple response to this: in America, anything is possible; as long as you work hard enough and continue to believe in your dream, it will come true.
The problem with this is that the logic behind it results in the following faulty conclusion: anyone who has not succeeded in America has not done so because he or she has not worked hard enough. This, in turn, leads to racist conclusions: black people are lazy (or black culture is lazy). It fails to take into account systemic oppression, both past and present, and therefore maintains, on the basis of the American Dream metanarrative, a “system of advantage based on race” (Wellman, quoted in Tatum 7).
Justin Holcomb, editor of Christian Theologies of Scripture (NYU Press, 2006), helpfully clarified the definition of “metanarrative” in an article at Common Grounds Online (http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com):

Metanarratives are over-arching meanings and beliefs, but for the purpose of legitimizing autonomous humanity, validating the modernist “views from no where” and supporting the “myth of neutrality.” When we use meaning to legitimize ourselves, our desires, and our autonomy [we] have constructed a metanarrative.

It’s the myth of objectivity, that one rational human being can come to the right conclusion for all humankind, bringing the hero knowledge to the people for their salvation – but based on nothing other than the human’s own supposed objectivity. And it turns out we’re not all as objective as we think we are.
Clearly, as John Granger has explained, and as we’ve just seen by definition, we’re dealing, to some extent, with postmodern literature here. The whole series opens with the cartoonish Dursleys, sad caricatures of the consequences of strictly rationalistic and materialistic thinking. Harry’s dream about the flying motorcycle is met with outrage, because the idea of “anything acting in a way that it shouldn’t” angered the rationalistic Dursleys (Stone 26).
As Hermione said later in the same book, “A lot of the greatest wizards haven’t got an ounce of logic,” which makes them a bad fit for an Enlightenment metanarrative (285). It was intolerance toward the magical powers of the Wizarding World and their unique perspective on the world that drove them into hiding. But strangely, the postmodern critique of modernism is, at least at first, on the periphery of the Harry Potter series. We only see glimpses of it. Instead, Rowling has focused on “another idea.” Observe the following from an interview in 2000:

Bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of “that which is different from me is necessary evil.” I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there’s another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together — no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That’s human nature, so that’s what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they’re already ostracized, and then within themselves, they’ve formed a loathsome pecking order (“Rowling Thunder”).

So what we have with Harry Potter is much more a critique of institutionalized racism and prejudice that happens within a community that has already experienced its own oppression from others.
This may be an interesting critique of postmodernism in itself. While postmodernism lays the blame on the structuralist thinking of modernism, Rowling lays the blame at the feet of human beings themselves, no matter what the philosophical paradigm. She creates for us a magical world – by no means a rationalistic, modern, Enlightenment world – that contains the same types of prejudice and racism present in our own.
We turn now to the Wizarding World’s “loathsome pecking order.”

Wizards vs. Muggles
Wizards vs. Muggles is obviously the first area of prejudice we see in the Wizarding World. This is a complex matter. Prior to Deathly Hallows, I would have argued that Wizards vs. Muggles was peripheral to the story, but Book 7 changed the way I looked at the entire series. I’ll get to this more in a few minutes.
Some, particularly anti-Potter fundamentalists (but not limited to them), have criticized Rowling for painting all Muggles with a broad, prejudiced brush, thereby being guilty of the very prejudice she seeks to dismantle. This is an unfortunate reading. Dumbledore, the most prejudice-free character in the series, the “epitome of goodness” [insert quote], and Harry’s moral model, is described as a “muggle-lover,” and he clearly is concerned, at the end of Chamber, about anything that might hinder Arthur Weasley’s “Muggle Protection Act.” We’re also intended to think well of Hermione’s parents, who appear to be models of progressive thinking, based on the kind of social conscience developing in Hermione.
What makes the Wizards vs. Muggles issue complex is that it’s an opportunity to look at things from the point of view of the oppressed, which is a difficult thing for the privileged to do. Memory modification, for example, is a difficult issue: does it constitute oppression of Muggles? How can it, when it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the Wizarding World? After all, the Wizarding World is in hiding because of the oppression of Muggles! Without hiding, and without memory modification, the Wizarding World would be found out. Despite their magical powers, the miniscule Wizarding World would stand no chance against vast Muggle armies. Secrecy is absolutely necessary for the survival of the Wizarding World.
Yet it’s the Wizarding World’s combination of secrecy and power that makes them so potentially dangerous to the Muggle world, should the Muggle-haters take control. In a most extreme example, recall Bob Ogden’s visit to the House of Gaunt. Morphin was to be brought up on charges of using magic on a Muggle. We see that even the great Albus Dumbledore was at one point lured by the idea that Wizarding power could be used to rule over Muggles. It’s complex, and I offer no fixed solution to the dilemma here.

Purebloods, Half-Bloods, and Muggle-borns
Purebloods, Half-Bloods, and Muggle-borns is clearly the central power story of the series. It is the fundamental rift in the Wizarding World, and the backstory to the entire conflict at Hogwarts and beyond. What is told in the 7 years of the series is a story founded upon the division between two former best friends: Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin.
What we find in the Harry Potter books is a fairly nuanced view of Racism that even finds some similarities with current progressive thinking on the issue, namely, Critical Race Theory. There are probably enough racial pitfalls in Rowling’s writing to diverge with some Critical Race Theorists – her gradualism, which I’ll outline below, being a prime example. But we can take a look at the series through this lens and find some profound insight into the problem of Racism.
Beverly Daniel Tatum gives the following definition to racism:

Many people use the terms prejudice and racism interchangeably. I do not, and I think it is important to make a distinction. In his book Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman argues convincingly that limiting our understanding of racism to prejudice does not offer a sufficient explanation for the persistence of racism. He defines racism as “a system of advantage based on race.” In illustrating this definition, he provides example after example of how Whites defend their racial advantage – access to better schools, housing, jobs – even when they do not embrace overtly prejudicial thinking. Racism cannot be fully explained as an expression of prejudice alone. (Tatum 7)

Once Voldemort has taken over the Ministry, there’s a very “racist” fountain put in its place: Wizards sitting on thrones made up of Muggles. It doesn’t get more blatantly prejudiced than that! There is a significant amount of blatant prejudice in the series – quite obvious when it comes from the mouth of Voldemort, less obvious, but still rather clear, when coming from the mouths of folks like Ron and Hagrid (as it relates to house-elves, for example). Yet, for the most part, as it relates to the question of Wizards vs. Muggles, or even Purebloods vs. Muggle-borns, there is a general perception in the Wizarding World that this kind of prejudice is a bad thing. Why, then, does the prejudice persist?
How do we explain the perpetuation of racial divisions within a society that has dropped open and outright bigotry? Joyce E. King’s notion of “dysconscious racism” is helpful here:

Dysconsciousness is an uncritical habit of mind (including perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs) that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting the existing order of things as given…. Dysconscious racism is a form of racism that tacitly accepts dominant White norms and privileges. (King 133)

In American culture, there is an incredibly important factor in the social construction and peretuation of racism that is usually missed by Whites: the fact that racism put Whites as a soci-cultural advantage over members of other races. We are used to our advantages – so used to them we don’t even realize they are White advantages. We legitimate ourselves with the metanarrative of the American Dream, the myth of “meritocracy,” i.e., that if you just work hard enough, you’ll achieve your dreams, and if you fail, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough.
Instead of being something that is inherent to human nature, “Race” is a social construction. Kenneth Roberts wrote the following in 1922:

The American nation was founded and developed by the Nordic race, but if a few more million members of the Alpine, Mediterranean and Semitic races are poured among us, the result must inevitably be a hybrid race of people as worthless and futile as the good-for-nothing mongrels of Central America and Southeastern Europe. (Roberts, in Brodkin 28).

So, race wasn’t always black and white, was it? This is the same kind of thing Slytherin would have said about Wizards marrying Muggles. Indeed, it’s the same type of sentiment that opens up Deathly Hallows, and it’s the motivation for Voldemort’s murder of the Muggle Studies teacher, Charity Burbage.
It’s interesting to note that by Deathly Hallows, there is no more talk of the problem of half-bloods. Any witch or wizard who can prove any magical blood in their family history is acceptable in the Wizarding World, according to the standards set by the Voldemort-influenced Ministry. Why? If Muggle blood is a problem, why are half-bloods accepted? The answer is really quite simple: the number of purebloods who remain are so few that they would not have the power to maintain their advantage. Hence, “races” were shifted in the public consciousness to maintain pureblood power and advantage.
The lesson here is this: Race is socially constructed. By whom? By the people who are advantaged by the oppression of others. If you’re looking for excellent insight into how this still happens, let me recommend to you Peggy McIntosh’s now well-known essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” which you can find for free online by using Google Scholar. Ms. McIntosh is a white female who unpacks all of the privileges she had received, without even realizing it, simply because she’s white.
Horace Slughorn is a perfect example of a person for whom race becomes constructed solely on the basis of his own comfort and privilege. It’s clear that Slughorn is, at the very least, a dysconscious racist, by King’s definition. He has most certainly accepted some deeply ingrained prejudices against Muggle-borns, and that is evident in his conversation with Harry. “You mustn’t think I’m prejudiced” (Half-Blood Prince 71). We’d all say that, wouldn’t we? Because it’s quite virtuous to not be prejudice, and our social conscience tells us that prejudice is wrong.
The argument could be made that he’s not really all that prejudiced. After all, as long as a Muggle-born works hard and achieves high marks and does well in the Wizarding World, Slughorn is quite impressed with the individual. He isn’t so prejudiced against Muggle-borns that he deliberately fails to recognize excellence in someone like Hermione. In that case, he’s far beyond the Malfoys, many Slytherins, and the Ministry under Voldemort’s control. And after all, he does fight against Voldemort in the end.
But Slughorn is a racist. He is a passive racist, perhaps – he doesn’t actively seek to oppress a race – but he is a racist nonetheless. To know of racism and to not be actively, deliberately opposed to it is to be a passive racist. And why is Slughorn a passive racist?
Two words: “creature comforts” (67).
Slughorn loves his creature comforts; in other words, he loves his privilege as a pureblood. He loves his powerful connections. He most certainly holds some sort of prejudice against Muggle-borns, but he instantly drops it – not even on the virtue of the Muggle-born’s achievement – but on the presupposition that inducting the brilliant Muggle-born into the Slug Club will get him solid connections in the future. He doesn’t drop his prejudice on principle; he does it for privilege.
Another fascinating example of institutionalized racism that maintains pureblood advantage is the enforcement of the restriction against underage wizardry:

“So if you’re underage and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard’s house, the Ministry won’t know?”

“They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic,” said Dumbledore, smiling slightly at the look of great indignation on Harrys face. “They rely on witch and wizard parents to enforce their offspring’s obedience while within their walls.” (Half-Blood Prince)

What makes the enforcement of this law racist is this: by its very nature, it can only be enforced upon Muggle-borns, because it is only in a Muggle-born’s home that the Ministry can be sure that it was the underage wizard performing the magic. As such, the Ministry is able to turn a blind eye to underage witches and wizards of magical families practicing over the summer.

Wizards vs. Non-human Magical Brethren
We can further consider the problem of wizarding advantage when thinking of the way the various magical brethren have been oppressed. They are forbidden wands, which prevents them from rising to a great power, therefore keeping them in check. The enslavement of the house-elves is another obvious wizarding advantage that is maintained – even by the “Good Guys” of the series, like Ron and Hagrid – by very racist thinking. In fact, it might be argued, based on the way the majority of the Wizarding World thinks about house-elves, that the social conscience of the Wizarding World is a few hundred years behind our own.
A final note on the power structures in the Wizarding World. I think it can be argued that the Ministry in Book 7 can be analyzed with Foucault’s use of the “Panopticon” -

Foucault also compares modern society with Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon” design for prisons (which was unrealized in its original form, but nonetheless influential): in the Panopticon, a single guard can watch over many prisoners while the guard remains unseen. The dark dungeon of pre-modernity has been replaced with the bright modern prison, but Foucault cautions that “visibility is a trap”. It is through this visibility, Foucault writes, that modern society exercises its controlling systems of power and knowledge (terms which Foucault believed to be so fundamentally connected that he often combined them in a single hyphenated concept, “power-knowledge”). Increasing visibility leads to power located on an increasingly individualized level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives. Foucault suggests that a “carceral continuum” runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others. (“Michael Foucault”).

In short, with the taboo on Voldemort’s name, the rounding up of Muggle-borns, and other such tactics, the Ministry has created a sort of prison state in which constant surveillance is the norm – once again, keeping people in check, preventing them from rising up in protest.

Dumbledore the Deconstructor
Dumbledore, who we now know was once tempted and tried by power, has become the deconstructor of this “loathsome pecking order.” The way he runs is school is not exactly a Panopticon – how often does Dumbledore seem completely missing from the daily activities of the school? Dumbledore is an advocate for Muggles, and his concern for house-elves and other magical brethren is so much a part of him that, staring at a boy who has just lost his godfather, Dumbledore finds it necessary to explain that Sirius’s unkind behavior towards Kreacher drove him toward his treachery.
Just because Dumbledore refused the position of Minister three times doesn’t mean he’s not a political figure. Obviously, he holds two very high-ranking positions: Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards and Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. These two positions make sense, given Dumbledore’s concerns: justice and international cooperation. But what exactly has Dumbledore done? Fandom has been rife with complaints that Dumbledore has not used his political power to affect any lasting change. Indeed, many analyses of Dumbledore sound eerily similar to the Death Eater Amycus’s charge: “Always talking and doing nothing, nothing” (HBP-28).
A better explanation can be found in the subtle links Rowling makes between a political group called The Fabian Society and Dumbledore’s Order of the Phoenix (Colbert 190). Several connections can be found in the names of Order members.

* Emmeline Vance – Emmeline Pankhurst, a women’s rights activist was one of the earliest members of the Fabian Society, and “vance” means “forward” (as in “advance”), which makes sense in light of their progressive political outlook (Colbert 190). The connection is made stronger by the fact that she is wearing a green shawl when Harry sees her, something commonly worn by suffragettes (again, see Colbert).
* Fabian Prewett – one of the deceased wizards who was in the order. ‘Nuff said.
* Sturgis Podmore – one of the founding members of the Fabian Society was Frank Podmore; it was he who named the group (see wikipedia).
* Kingsley Shacklebolt – Kingsley Martin was a member, and he edited a”left-leaning political journal.”

Furthermore, many authors were among the early members – Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Edith Nesbit, the latter being a favorite of Rowling’s. But what does this have to do with Dumbledore? If Rowling means to connect the Order with the Fabian Society, then we have a very reasonable explanation as to why Dumbledore has not succeeded in effecting widespread change in the wizarding world, and why his beliefs have not always resulted in action, even though he holds such high positions of power.
Simply put, the Fabian Society believes in slow, eventual change, not revolution. This was one of their early defining characteristics, in fact. They are a socialist society, but different from Marx in his belief that equity would come about by a lower-class revolution. Rather, they believed in gradual change over time.
Take the house elves as an illustration. Dumbledore’s treatment of the house elves represents a sensitive stance toward their psychological slavery and a transitional period towards a time of greater freedom for their kind. Dumbledore doesn’t lead a revolution like Hermione wants to do; he makes the change happen slowly. He simultaneously respects their free will and provides an atmosphere in which they are not required to submit to certain aspects of the house-elves’ enslavement.
This gradualism seems to be the key to Rowling’s politics and the house-elf problem. She said this of Hermione:

Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she’s trying to help. She offends them. She’s not very sensitive…. She thinks it’s so easy. It’s part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don’t have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it’s hard work to change things and that it doesn’t happen overnight. Hermione thinks she’s going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write. (“J.K. Rowling Interview”)

The Fabian Society was named for Fabius Maximus, a Roman general during the attack by Hannibal. His legacy is described in this way:

Later, he became a legendary figure and the model of a tough, courageous Roman, and was bestowed the honorific title, “The Shield of Rome”. (Similar to Marcus Claudius Marcellus being named the “Sword of Rome”) According to Ennius – “one man, by delaying, restored the state to us.” Vergil, in the Aeneid, has Aeneas’ father Anchises mention Fabius Maximus while in Hades as the greatest of the many great Fabii, quoting the same line. While Hannibal is mentioned in the company of history’s greatest generals, military professionals have bestowed Fabius’ name on an entire strategic doctrine known as “Fabian strategy,” and George Washington has been called “the American Fabius.” (“Fabius Maximus”)

Dumbledore’s legacy is the same. While many criticized his methods, Book 7 demonstrated that he had put all the plans in place. Frank Podmore, one of the founders of the Fabians and the one who named the group, said this: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless” (quoted in Colbert 190-91). Harry Potter was Dumbledore’s “right moment to strike.”

Conclusion
There is much that can be said, and perhaps even some things to criticize, about Rowling’s treatment of the issues of power and racism in the Harry Potter series. Overall, she has given us a tremendous starting place for talking about many of these issues.
Harry took down Voldemort. A massive defeat against the Dark Lord was won. But what of the other issues raised by Rowling throughout the series? What of the social evils she addressed? Some will be disturbed that house-elves are still enslaved at the end of Book 7. What of the unity of the four houses of which the Sorting Hat sang? And has their been any healing whatsoever in the Pureblood-Muggleborn divide?
It would seem that Rowling has raised many issues that she did not resolve, issues which have very, very serious parallels in our world (slavery, racism, prejudice). Why did Rowling not directly address these issues and bring them to happy resolutions? Does she really mean us to think that slavery is an acceptable state for house-elves, or that racism and prejudice will continue to be perpetuated, even by the “good guys,” in the Wizarding World?
I don’t think so, and our answer lies in Rowling’s belief in gradualism, following the Fabian Society. Whatever you might think of this connection, whether you agree with Fabian politics or not, it’s best that Rowling didn’t nicely wrap these issues up by the end of Book 7. The depth and complexity of the problems are far too great to have simple, one-year answers.
We were never going to see a sudden shift in house-elf rights or a radical transformation in centuries-old prejudices in the Wizarding World. Rowling knows that when injustice is so deeply rooted in society that it’s considered a positive moral norm (even the “good guys” reinforce the injustice for supposedly good reasons) that one revolution isn’t going to change everything. So instead of revolution, we get little victories:

* Kreacher’s Transformation - Dumbledore was correct. Kreacher needed to be shown kindness. Many were skeptical of Dumbledore’s advice here, believing that, at best, kindness towards Kreacher would keep his evil at bay, hold him off from doing anything too rash or detrimental to the Order. Instead, kindness to Kreacher caused a change in his entire person. Harry, Ron, and Hermione actually acted towards Kreacher in a way that valued validated his own desires, and Kreacher responded with an amazing turnaround. Still a slave? Yes. And that is tragic. But his will was changed from bitterness to a willingness to help the side of good, and that’s a huge step. It will be ages before house-elves want the kind of freedom Hermione was trying to crusade for with S.P.E.W. But perhaps with Voldemort gone, quicker progress will be made.
* “Albus Severus” – The key to the healing of house division is the healing of the Gryffindor-Slytherin rift. Again, this is centuries old, and it will not heal overnight. But because of the bravery of Severus Snape and the forgiveness of Albus Dumbledore (and later, Harry Potter), a change has begun, a little victory won. When Harry was in school, he would have been appalled at any idea that Slytherin was not altogether evil, and he would have bought the lie that all dark wizards have come from Slytherin. “19 years later,” however, Harry is willing to say that Albus Severus would have no need to be ashamed of being in Slytherin whatsoever. Instead of disparaging the house, he spoke of Severus Snape, “the bravest man” he ever knew. This is a monumental change in Harry’s thinking (perhaps also affected by the fact that he was part Voldemort for 16 years of his life!).
* The Victory Feast – After the defeat of Voldemort, Rowling makes it a point to note that no one sat according to houses at the four tables McGonagall had replaced in the Great Hall. It was a victory to be celebrated by unity, not division. It is unfortunate that no Slytherins had joined the fight. But this is yet another little victory that will hopefully result in greater unity down the road.
There may be others, but the point is this: Rowling believes change happens not by force, but by the changing of hearts over time. The conclusion of M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie is perhaps the best commentary one can find on what Rowling was trying to do with chapters 34-36 of Deathly Hallows, and how the defeat of evil – including racism and prejudice – are to be accomplished:

The healing of evil – scientifically or otherwise – can be accomplished only by the love of individuals. A willing sacrifice is required. The individual healer must allow his or her own soul to become the battleground. He or she must sacrificially absorb the evil.

The what prevents the destruction of that soul? If one take’s evil itself into one’s heart, like a spear, how can one’s goodness still survive? Even if the evil is vanquished thereby, will not the good be also? What will have been achieved beyond some meaningless trade-off?

I cannot answer this in language other than mystical. I can say only that there is a mysterious alchemy whereby the victim becomes the victor. As C.S. Lewis wrote: “When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.”

I do not know how this occurs. But I know that it does. I know that good people can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by the evil of others – to be broken thereby yet somehow not broken – to even be killed in some sense and yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world (269).

That’s what happened with Harry’s willing sacrifice. The defeat of the evil of Voldemort was monumental. The effect of the sacrifice was “a slight shift in the balance of power in the world.” Not an immediate, revolutionary healing, but a slight shift, a turn towards the good, a catalyst for little victories that will hopefully lead to lasting change.

Bibliography

Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks and What That says about Race in America. Rutgers University Press, 1998.

Colbert, David. The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter. Tandem Library Books, 2002.

“Fabius Maximus.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus. 2 Aug 2007.

Granger, John. “Disney Does Derrida.” Lumos 2006.

Holcomb, Justin. “Responding to Carl Trueman – Christianity is NOT a Metanarrative.” Common Grounds Online. http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com/common_grounds_online/2007/05/editors_note_ju.html. 9 May 2007.

“J.K. Rowling Interview,” CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, July 13, 2000. URL: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm.

Joyce E. King, “ Dysconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of Teachers.” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 133-146.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press, 1984.

“Michael Foucault,” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault.

Peck, M. Scott. People of the Lie. Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York: Scholastic, Inc.,
1999.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic, 2007.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. New York: Scholastic, Inc., 2000.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York, Scholastic Inc., 2005.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Scholastic, Inc.
2003.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic, Inc., 1997.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (New York: Basic Books, 2002).