Williams1

PrejudiceTotalus:InequalityandHierarchyintheWorldofHarryPotter

Few stories have enchanted readers as much as J.K. Rowlings worldfamous Harry Potter
series. From flying on broomsticks to dueling with lethal magic, Harry Potter allows its readers to
experience the joy and mystery of magic in a modern and relatable setting. However, the life of a typical
witch or wizard is far from merely magical jellybeans and unicorns. The story follows students learning
magic at a school which, apart from the moving stairs and talking portraits, functions much like a school
intherealworld.Sociallifeisjustasimportantasitwouldbeinanyhighschool.
The House System, the basic social structure of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
serves as a tool for organizing students into four separate groups. This is based on evaluating students
strengths and weaknesses. The House System allows readers to feel invested in the social life of
Hogwarts, letting them experience the rivalries and competition as if they themselves attended the
school. Unfortunately, however, it seems that not all Houses were created equal, as not only are they
presented to the reader discriminatively, but the actual structure in which they exist in the story is shown
to be exceptionally prejudicial. Sociological analysis of favoritism, privilege, and the notion of social
essentialism help to inform about the nature of social inequality at Hogwarts. The House System within
the Harry Potter series introduces and reinforces notions of social hierarchy that may have a surprising
effectonpeoplesactuallives.
At the close of the first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, the House of Slytherin
waits in the Great Hall to be awarded the House Cup. They have easily the most points of any House,
and the Great Hall is already fully decorated in the Slytherin colors of green and silver. Gryffindor
House, unfortunately for the protagonists, is in last place. And yet, something happens that quickly

Williams2
reminds Slytherin House of the harsh reality of their social position at Hogwarts. Albus Dumbledore,
Headmaster and former Gryffindor, decides to award lastminute points. 50 points to Hermione (a
Gryffindor) for being logical, 50 points to Ron (a Gryffindor) for winning a game of chess, 60 points to
Harry (a Gryffindor) for being brave, and another 10 points to Neville (a Gryffindor) for also being
brave. After the new points are tallied together, it appears that there is a new winner Gryffindor ends
the year with 10 points more than Slytherin. The colors are changed to Gryffindors gold and red.
Despite their fall from the second and third places to the third and last places, ...even Ravenclaw and
Hufflepuff were celebrating the downfall of Slytherin...(The Sorcerers Stone, 246247) This glaring
exampleoffavoritismonlybarelyscratchesthegildedsurfaceofHouseinequality.
Hogwarts Houses are not only plagued with favoritism, but also with privilege. Privilege, in
sociological terms, refers to unseen or unnoticed advantages enjoyed by favored social groups, often
with the adage its what you dont see. The foundations of Privilege Theory are prominent social
activist Peggy McIntoshs theories of White Privilege and Male Privilege, but Privilege Theory has
expanded to include a wide array of social groups and categories. In her essay Examining Unearned
Privilege, McIntosh presents specific points of privilege that she observed concerning race relations in
the United States, and a surprising number of them apply to Hogwarts Houses as well. For instance, the
fifth point she identified is that one ...can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I
will not be followed or harassed. (McIntosh, 61). In The Sorcerers Stone, Harry goes out of his way
to follow Severus Snape, Head of Slytherin House, into the Forbidden Forest on nothing more than a
whim. The narrator describes Snape, sneaking into the forest while everyone else was at dinner what
was going on? Harry jumped back on his Nimbus Two Thousand and took off (The Sorcerers Stone,
180). Or again, in The Deathly Hallows, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione, the protagonist triumvirate

Williams3
of Gryffindor House, secretly follow Draco Malfoy, a Slytherin House Prefect, as he goes about his
shopping, simply because Harry ...was sure the reason could not be innocent. (The Deathly Hallows,
130). The first surprising aspect of this is that regardless of whatever intuitions Harry is feeling, he is here
a sixteen year old student in a shopping center full of trained, wise, and fully postpubescent witches and
wizards. And yet, readers seldom bat an eye at Harrys reckless individualism here. In all due fairness to
Harrys impeccable track record, he was right and Malfoys shopping trip was anything but innocent.
This is, however, even more problematic, as not only does it expose readers to prejudicial behavior, but
also asserts that this prejudice was, in fact, justified quite the dangerous message to be spreading to
children.
The framing presents a group of people, Slytherin House, as always demanding the attention
and complete suspicion of the allegedly more noble group, Gryffindor House, who will make sure the
Slytherins do not cause problems. It goes completely unaddressed that when Harry (an eleven year old
boy during The Sorcerers Stone) follows Snape (a professor of Harrys, and a Hogwarts Head of
House) into the forbidden forest, Snape was actually performing the Headmasters orders, and Harry
was merely breaking school rules (The Sorcerers Stone, 232). Gryffindor, far from being merely
favored by the Headmaster, clearly consider themselves morally superior to their less privileged, and
allegedly less trustworthy Slytherin counterparts. This elitism, rather than being rejected as socially
harmful,isapplaudedconsistentlythroughtheseries.
Perhaps, however, Slytherin House really is less trustworthy than the other Houses.The story
certainly seems to present them that way. After all, the central conflict of the story is concerned with
combating a former Slytherin, Lord Voldemort, who has embarked on a genocidal crusade, with
consistently Slytherin followers (The Goblet of Fire, 651). In The Order of The Phoenix, the Sorting

Williams4
Hat even describes Slytherin House as the House that specifically admits those students whose
ancestry is purest(The Order of the Phoenix, 204). It seems reasonable that, if any House should be
considered less favorably than the others, it should be the House that seems wholly designed around a
violent prejudice against nonmagical people, and an adamant focus on blood purity. Slytherin House
certainlydoesseemtodeservetheirreputationasunquestionablyvillainouscharacters.
However, it seems that this assessment of Slytherin House is itself predicated upon
generalizations, false information, and even social stratification itself. The Sorting Hat made a bold claim
in stating Slytherin is a House for those whose ancestry is purest. The two most prominent Slytherin
characters in the series, Severus Snape and Lord Voldemort, are both HalfBloods meaning that one
of their parents was completely nonmagical. NearlyHeadless Nick, a ghost of Hogwarts Castle,
explains that this Sorting Hat, which originally was Godric Gryffindors own hat ...feels itself
honorbound to give the school due warning whenever it feels(The Order of the Phoenix, 207).
This warning was pertaining to a need for school unity that the Slytherins must cooperate with the
other Houses. What is happening here is that an animated heirloom of Gryffindor himself is
honorbound (as everything Gryffindor must be) to describe Slytherin House as essentially and
eternally exclusive to PureBlood wizards. Slytherin, in the eyes of Gryffindor House, is nothing but a
bastion for prejudicial thought, and as such, the Sorting Hat warns the entire student body of threats
facing Hogwarts implying them to be the direct result of that one House of people being too
exclusionary,generalizing,andwicked.
While its true that each of the four Houses are a specific category, in a seemingly exclusionary
way, this call for unity by the Sorting Hat is framed in a much less egalitarian way. Far from being merely
a valid representation of the traits defining each House, followed by a call for unity at Hogwarts, the

Williams5
Sorting Hat redefines the House traits from their original Bravery, Intelligence, Friendliness, and
Ambition to his own variation of Bravery, Intelligence, Everybody, and Purebloods. This simply cannot
be a genuine call for unity for the entire school. It is rather a very opinionated criticism of the socially
unfavoredandunprivilegedHouse,andthiscriticismmaynotevenbelegitimate.
To identify what the most prevalent currents of thought within Slytherin House were during
Harrys time at Hogwarts, it is useful to analyze the two most prominent leaders of Slytherin House
during Harrys education. The first, Severus Snape, devoted his life to fighting against Lord Voldemort
in the name of one of Voldemorts victims, Lily Evans. Lily Evans was Harry Potters mother, and was
a mudblood or child of nonmagical parents. (The Deathly Hallows, 687). In The HalfBlood
Prince, the character of Horace Slughorn is introduced. He had previously been the Slytherin Head of
House, and now returns to Hogwarts to teach Potions Class. Upon Harry questioning Slughorn as to
why he, a Slytherin, would have had such respect for Harrys mother (due to her being a mudblood,)
Slughorn responds Oh, you mustnt think Im prejudice!(The HalfBlood Prince, 76). Slughorn
explains that he respects talent wherever he finds it, regardless of whose talent it is. It seems that, while
Gryffindors (and their hats) seem to always be determined to portray Slytherins as generalizing and
discriminatory racists obsessing over Blood Purity, the actual generalizations and prejudice seem to be
comingfromGryffindor,directedatwellmeaningSlytherins.
It is, nonetheless, true that Lord Voldemort was a Slytherin, and that a majority of his followers
were Slytherins. However, it appears that their Slytherin affiliation, instead of being caused by their
criminality, was rather the cause of their criminality itself. It must be noted that Voldemorts Death
Eaters were organized by Voldemort while at school, with his friends and followers who also were in
Slytherin. The Slytherin students who engage in criminal behavior, or exhibit prejudicial or discriminatory

Williams6
tendencies when Harry is attending Hogwarts are the children of former Slytherins that are already
Death Eaters. This correlation exists as much in the real world as it does in the world of Harry Potter. In
an article titled Childhood Predictors of Adult Criminality, researchers at the University of Ontario
found several indicators in children that were linked with adult criminality. Among them were parental
inability to foster selfcontrol in their children, [...] a variety of negative parenting practices, coercive
family interactions (Leschied). Certainly being active in a genocidal terrorist organization would have
prevented Death Eaters from making positive parenting choices, and having daily interactions with the
most evil wizard in world history is certain to lead to coercive family interactions. It would seem that
these students in Slytherin House not only end up emulating their parents, but other Slytherin students
are forced into a social structure whereby their only social interaction is with other Slytherins, who often
have criminal parents and become criminals themselves. Slytherin House, rather than being the automatic
destinationforcruelandevilelevenyearolds,actuallyservesasanincubatorforfuturecriminality.
This is primarily significant because misconstruing correlation as causation in regards to social
inequality is a common cause of misplaced prejudice. For example, it is now widely accepted that the
concept of race is, rather than being biological, purely a social construct. However, conviction rates,
incarceration rates, and therefore at least the reported criminality rates are consistently higher for
African Americans than for Caucasian Americans. This discrepancy is caused by social factors such as
socioeconomic disadvantages, and indeed as Leschied addresses, familial causes. Though there are no
biological or essential characteristics that distinguish criminality rates between different racial groups, the
data reflects a correlation. It seems incredibly reckless, therefore, to present Slytherin House as
inherently criminalistic to readers, especially children and young adults that may not have extensive
experiencewithculturallydiversepeopleandgroups.

Williams7
If Slytherin House is presented as inherently violent, evil, and, and racist, and the story
consistently justifies and validates this observation, there seems to be a tremendous risk that readers
could make the same logical fallacy in assessing real social groups. This serves well in reminding of
Peggy McIntoshs fifth point of privilege. What she identified was that an African American can often
not find solace as they go about their lives, due to suspicious glares and careful observation for fear that
they may steal or damage merchandise, or even hurt someone. This senseless and ridiculous fear of
African Americans clearly seems to be a real problem that must still be addressed to this day, and
priming impressionable minds by reinforcing the kind of thinking that creates those harmful stereotypes
certainlyseemslikeapoorideainregardtostrengtheningsocialequality.
Though this system may be brutally unfair, and a specific group of people certainly do seem to
consistently draw the short straw throughout the story, the students of Slytherin House are still merely
characters in a story. In fact, the story itself seems to be incredibly concerned with the themes of social
equality and acceptance. Hermione even founds an organization dedicated to freeing House Elves
from their position as slaves (The Goblet of Fire, 224). Furthermore the entire plot of the story centers
around preventing a villain from indiscriminately killing all nonmagical people in an ethnic cleansing fury.
It may seem that, no matter how problematic the social structure of Hogwarts may be, the story as a
whole instills good values and positive effects on its readers. However, the social hierarchy and currents
of privilege and favoritism in the story could have a much larger effect on its readers than may meet the
eye.
None of the problems associated with the social structure of Hogwarts really matter, as long as
the world of Harry Potter does come to life in the real world. Unfortunately, it looks as though it does.
From amusement park attractions to Ivy League Quidditch teams, Harry Potter has become one of the

Williams8
most prolific pieces of pop culture in living memory. In an article titled The Interface Between Fiction
and Life, Els Andringa, professor of literary theory at Utrecht University, describes how readers bring
Harry Potter into the real world. Whether they encounter Robinson Crusoe [...] or Harry Potter,
children from about eight to thirteen tend to become absorbed by a world as viewed from the

perspective of a hero or heroine. Highly reassuring is the wishfulfilling ending, in which the hero or
heroine and the helpful friends appear to have power over their own destiny and overcome danger and
evil. The heroes and heroines are mostly independent. [...] The preference for this type of book can be
explained [...] by the dream of having power in the world (Andringa, 230). In this analysis of
research data, Andringa is explaining how children associate with and idolize independent characters
such as Harry Potter. The empowerment of being able to ignore the advice and commands of their
superiors, while still experiencing favoritism, privilege, and the assumption of being grand and noble,
makes Harry Potter the perfect hero for many young readers. Should the behavior of heroes such as
Harry Potter be emulated, perhaps Hogwarts dismal social structure may be found to have a real effect
ontherealworld.
Sadly enough, the behavior of Harry Potter and his classmates are indeed emulated in the real
world. In 2010, researchers at the Institute of Psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam published
an article concerning selfreported levels of bravery in adolescents. The article was titled You Might
Belong in Gryffindor. The study found that there was a positive correlation between selfreported
bravery (as one might expect from the emulation of Harry Potter) and other traits including extroversion
and masculine sex roles, with the opposite being true for anxiety symptoms (Muris, 2010). If
adolescents truly do idolize and emulate heroes such as Harry Potter as Andringa concludes, the result
would most certainly be people wishing to emulate the characteristics Harry Potter portrays, most

Williams9
notably bold and chivalrous courage. This study, following selfreported courage rather than objective
measures of bravery, seems to most indicate traits seen in people that wish to emulate bravery and
consider bravery a trait they should have, rather than identifying traits common in objectively more
courageous people. As such, it logically would follow from the findings of this study that cultural
emphasis on displaying raw courage will correspond proportionally with emphasis on related traits such
asextraversionandmasculinesexroles.
This cultural emphasis on bravery, extraversion, and masculine sex roles is something that
everyone can see in modern culture. This is simply an observation of hypermasculinity. A bold and
daring Gryffindor must obviously be daring, and strong, never weak or quiet Always outspoken, never
introverted, anxious, or (as the data from Erasmus suggests) at all outside of conventional masculine sex
roles. Beyond the obvious heteronormativity that is propagated by this hypermasculinity, another serious
problem exists here. This hypermasculinity, that psychologists have here already identified with
Gryffindor traits, is also correlated with extraversion. An emphasis on extraversion can often seem to
not be harmful or negative, but this could not be further from the truth. In 2009, researchers at Helsinki
University published a study concerning correlations between neuroticism, introversion, and depression.
What they found was that mean scores of neuroticism were higher and those of extraversion lower in
the depressive patient group than in the general population (Jylha, 325334). What this means is that
people who suffer from depressive symptoms exhibit correspondingly more neurotic and introverted
behavior. As the research from Erasmus University highlighted, anxiety and introversion have a negative
correlation with the hypermasculinity of Gryffindor. Essentially this all means that people suffering from
depression symptoms exhibit more and more traits and behavior that are opposed to the assumptions of
a hypermasculine culture. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that depression can often be so

Williams10
astonishinglyinescapable.
Beyond these potential links to heteronormativity and depression symptoms, beyond even the
actual characteristics of any specific House, the House System reinforces harmful views on the social
world and social equality. The grouping of people into specific Houses based upon specific traits
directly establishes notions of essentialism. The topic is explored in the research of Ulrike Rangel and
Johannes Keller in the article Essentialism Goes Social. They define essentialism, stating essentialized
social categories are seen as having a specific ontological status that is, all group members have a set of
necessary features in common (Rangel, 1057). Essentialism might refer to the belief that women prefer
the color pink while men prefer blue. Or even, essentialism could refer to a belief as harmful as the idea
that all African Americans are criminals. In the context of the Hogwarts House System, essentialism
means that the characteristics the Sorting Hat associates with the different Houses with are the primary
meanswithwhichissortsHouses.TheessentialqualitiesofthestudentsdictatetheirHouseplacement.
In The Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore makes a statement to Harry that seems to refute the
idea that Hogwarts Houses are essentialist categories. When Harry asks Dumbledore why the Sorting
Hat put Harry in Gryffindor rather than Slytherin, Dumbledore responds stating It is our choices, Harry,
that determine who we truly are, far more than our abilities (The Chamber of Secrets, 461). While this
does seem to imply that Houses are, in fact, not predicated on essential characteristics, later in The
Deathly Hallows, Dumbledore establishes quite the opposite, telling Severus Snape "You are a braver
man by far than Igor Karkaroff. You know, I sometimes think we Sort too soon..." (The Deathly
Hallows, 680). Here, it seems that, even though Snape was indeed brave enough to be a Gryffindor, he
would need to endure being despised for being a Slytherin, being followed into the forest for being a
Slytherin, and being unanimously untrusted for being a Slytherin, due to a decision about Snape that the

Williams11
Sorting Hat made when Snape was eleven years old, which Dumbledore clearly seems to think was a
mistake. These comments by Dumbledore, when juxtaposed, seem to present him comforting Harry (in
the esteemed Gryffindor) by saying that Harrys choices made it such that Harry deserved to be in
Gryffindor, despite his Slytherin characteristics, while Severus Snape was relegated to Slytherin, despite
being fully noble and brave enough to be in Gryffindor. Dumbledores statement that sometimes they
Sort too soon is almost a confession to how improper the House system is, and to the essentialist
natureofit.
The research by Rangel and Keller shows how this essentialism is harmful. They describe that
individuals with a high level of chronic prejudice show a tendency to endorse BSD [social
determinism]which can be helpful to explain the low social status or negative stereotypic attributes of
the relevant derogated social group (Rangel, 1074). What this means is that prejudice begets
prejudice. When people are used to thinking about other people in categories based on their traits,
rather than as individuals with their own set of traits, those people develop the tendency to assume
negative stereotypes based upon categories of people. The unanimous mistrust of Slytherins and
glorification of Gryffindors in the Hogwarts House System prepares this social determinism reflex in
readers for the rest of their life, where it will help make people jump to essentialist assumptions and
developnegativestereotypes.
When readers read Harry Potter, the lessons it teaches them go far beyond the immorality of
House Elf slavery, or the importance of teamwork. Harry Potter, first and foremost, teaches that
people should be categorized. It also vehemently espoused that the bold, daring, extroverted, and
hypermasculine people are better than their introverted, quiet, anxious, calm, or less macho
counterparts. It presents abject favoritism and social privilege of that elite hypermasculine group as

Williams12
being positive, and something that everyone (even Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs) should desire. It teaches
readers that people exhibiting behavior and traits that are not normal to this social elite are not people to
be trusted, and need to even be followed while they go about their day to make sure they arent doing
anything they shouldnt be. The Harry Potter series, while presented as a fun adventurous story of a
growing young adult in a magical world, is actually a glorified caricature of patriarchy, stratification,
elitism,andhypermasculinity,thatevenpreparesreaderstoendorsenegativestereotypeslaterinlife.
While the books are immensely entertaining and enjoyable, the Harry Potter series serves as a
useful reminder that people must maintain constant vigilance against potentially unaddressed notions of
social hierarchy and inequality in the often murky waters of literary fiction. If society wishes to avoid the
clearly dangerous effects that literature such as Harry Potter can have on its readers conceptions of
social equality, there seem to be only two valid options. Either we carefully police the literary material
and other self expression of storytellers, authors, and directors with a strong stand against inequality,
discrimination, and prejudice in the fictional world, or we carefully police ourselves with a constant
awareness of the social inequality around us, such that there is no confusion between what is fictional
inequality as a storytelling device, and what is a genuine instance of really existing social hierarchy or
even oppression. Obviously the latter seems preferable, but if we wish to rely on ourselves to keep
inequality and social hierarchy in check, it seems completely evident that we must start doing a much
betterjobofit.

WorksCited
1.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheSorcerersStone.NewYork:Scholastic,1998.Print.
2.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheChamberofSecrets.NewYork:Scholastic,1999.

Williams13
Print.
3.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandthePrisonerofAzkaban.NewYork:Scholastic,1999.
Print.
4.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheGobletofFire.NewYork:Scholastic,2000.Print.
5.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheOrderofthePhoenix.NewYork:Scholastic,2003.
Print.
6.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheHalfBloodPrince.NewYork:Scholastic,2005.
Print.
7.Rowling,J.K.HarryPotterandtheDeathlyHallows.NewYork:Scholastic,2007.Print.
8.McIntosh,Peggy."ExaminingUnearnedPrivilege."LiberalEducation,79.1(1993):6162.
9.Leschied,Alan,DebbieChiodo,ElizabethNowicki,andSusanRodger."Childhood
Predictors of Adult Criminality." Volume 50, Number 4, July/juillet 2008, 50.4 (2008):
435467.
10.Andringa,Els."TheInterfaceBetweenFictionandLife."Volume25,Number2,Summer
2004,25.2(2004):205240.
11.Muris,Peter,BirgitMayer,TinkeSchubert,andSpringer."'YouMightBelongin
Gryffindor':Children'sCourageandItsRelationshipstoAnxietySymptoms,BigFive
PersonalityTraits,andSexRoles."ChildPsychiatry&HumanDevelopment,41.2
(2010):204213.
12.Jylha,Pekka,TarjaMelartin,HeikkiRytsala,andErkkiIsometsa."Neuroticism,
Introversion,andMajorDepressiveDisordertraits,States,orScars?."Depression&
Anxiety(10914269),26.4(2009):325334.

Williams14
13.Rangel,Ulrike,JohannesKeller,andAMERPSYCHOLOGICALASSOC."Essentialism
GoesSocial:BeliefinSocialDeterminismasaComponentofPsychological
Essentialism."JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,100.6(2011):
10561078.