I’ve been thinking about the structure of the wizarding world in Harry Potter and wanted to get your thoughts:


What kinds of resources, monopolies, or advantages would pureblood families realistically control to maintain their power over time?


It can’t just be blood status alone, right? They must have control over key industries like potion ingredient, ward creation, the Floo Network, Portkey creation, magical creatures, or utilities.
While spells and magical skill are vital, having control over these resources would give pureblood families an undeniable advantage, especially in times of war, right?


What’s your personal headcanon for which pureblood family controls what?

(Malfoys? Blacks? Longbottoms? Other rich purebloods?)

 

Extrapolating from canon, power structures in the wizarding world has to do with who gets to use magic, specifically wanded magic, and to what degree of expertise.

It's not a coincidence that most adult wizards cannot cast a Shield charm, or that Ministry jobs come with status but require utmost compliance, i.e., consider the WOMBAT exams as a requirement.

As with the muggle world, resources are important, but access to magic itself changes everything.

And everyone has the possibility to be ... better. This is why two of the most influential and powerful wizards, on an individual level, happened to be half-bloods.

But humans remain the only human-like species to have access to wands. Hags, goblins, etc all have to do without.

You can control power structures if you encourage those beneath your thumb to believe they have the possibility to be just like you. In a democracy, anyone could be president, technically.

The trick is to embed restrictions into the very frameworks that allow access. Teach your peoples to believe in their unfreedom, teach them to seek it.

So, I'd say it's probably the Sacred 28 running the show. Who are the big players? That changes with every generation, but the Minister doesn't need to be from the Sacred 28 if some of those people are pulling strings. No need to get their hands dirty, other people have hands...

Anyway, that's enough handwaving for now. There's some gaps in my logic here, but I found the question interesting and wanted to push the idea out. Will think on this some more.


edit:

Come to think of it, Prince of the Dark Kingdom has an interesting solution to the problem of what to do with anyone who's not pureblood, short of downright genocide

 

Personally I assume they primarily focus on increasing their wealth and then just use their wealth to influence things through donations to certain politicians or institutions.

Like I doubt the Malfoys or Blacks perform some special services for the wizarding world, but are probably just in possession of some valuable capital like maybe they own parts of a forest that has a large amount of wand trees growing in it and some magical creatures or they own land used for agriculture of magical herbs and creatures, or maybe they just have some rental properties used by wizards and other magical beings.

like what they own doesen't have to be particularly important, it just needs to give them the funds to exert enough power, like how one Black was able to become Headmaster of Hogwarts through donations, another one bought himself an Order of Merlin and how Lucuius was able to avoid prison time and exert influence over Fudge through donations.

 

The only way to do it would be to murder any promising wizard of Dumbledore type potential in their early youth.

 

Dumbledore existed alongside the influence of the Malfoys. Presumably Dumbledore is smart and powerful enough (as a wizard, not politically powerful) to murder whoever he wanted and get away with it. So, is it a case of Dumbledore knowingly allowing the Malfoys of the world to exist at his whim and/or for his amusement or is an incredibly powerful wizard still limited in some ways that leave avenues for Malfoykind to exploit?

 

Dumbledore caters to the status quo. He's a broken person, burnt by his own ambition, and that of one very close to him.

Close in power, close to his heart. And he had to have him confined to a prison of his own making.

Dumbledore can exert enough influence to change the wizarding world, yet he doesn't. He plays at Headmaster and judge when needed, and rarely gets involved. At least, not to the degree he could.

With the amount of pull he has, political and magical, just breathing in the wrong direction could forever change lives. Or end them.

He's tired and wary, and made a conscious choice to remain at bay.

Other than with Harry of course, and that didn't leave him unscathed.

Fine line between benevolent leader and despot. One could argue there's no difference.

He's afraid of what he could do. Why else would he do nothing to drive meaningful change?


Voldemort has a real political agenda.
The Order, and the truth and purpose lie in the name, only shows up as foil to the Death Eaters. In the absence of a threat to the existing balance, The Order doesnt exist. Hence, Dumbledore against anything that threatens the status quo.

So, Dumbledore allows the likes of the Malfoys to run free, and his sole limits are the ones he imposes. He's not the picture of true virtue, he has flaws, and the biggest one is his blindspot to his (in)action(s), chief of which where Harry and Voldemort are concerned.

 

I cannot tell if this is sarcastic or not. Talent is no guarantor of rebellion. For every truly talented witch or wizard, there's only a small chance he or she wants to oppose the system at all, and you need a lot more than individual talent to do that. Simply being able to best Voldemort in a duel is not nearly enough, not when he can just disappear and has nothing to protect. That's the fundamental difference that makes him effectively unbeatable without total bullshit on the table.
As a character and not simply a level of talent, Dumbledore is someone with something to protect. He's a man of principle; he's not just going to murder someone who isn't actively fighting. He's aware that even though he has the power to defeat someone like Grindelwald, he is too deeply flawed to trust himself to use that power to the benefit of others, not when he already had such a warped view of what would be helpful.

 

I think you're seeing this all wrong.

Dumbledore isn't allowing anyone to do anything. He does what he can within legal limits. He believes in *people* and in the value of a structured society. To try to force his ideas on others through violence and start attacking houses of families and murdering them is literally the Grindelwald and Voldemort route, and even if he took that, yes he's the strongest but he would eventually be beaten by coordinated efforts of the society he chooses to oppress. Voldemort and Dumbledore are the strongest, but even they are in danger from concentrated efforts of talented and trained people like the Aurors.

Dumbledore did everything he could both as a political influence in peacetime, and as ringleader of rebellion during Voldemort's terror reigns. To say otherwise is to dip into fanon and do him a disservice.

And sure, there are perhaps things he could have done/done earlier that he didn't. But he's one man, he has imperfect information and imperfect judgement. But he did the best he could, and he was not inactive.

 

Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I don't think we're in disagreement regarding Dumbledore's motivations and ethical concerns. For whatever it's worth, I see where you're coming from, and find it valid. But I can't help but differ in how I judge his position and choices, and his potential to do more. We're not talking mathematical proofs here, but literary interpretation, and I can't separate my biases from my perception. I'm also talking about both what is there and what isn't there, while I think you're primarily referring to what's already there. I will concede that if we stay strictly within the confines of what's there, you're totally correct and there's no further conversation to be had, but where's the fun in that.

By 'allowing' people to run free, I mean to say he can absolutely step in and prevent anyone from doing anything. He can wield magic to a degree that very few can, and doesn't need armies. He can, and does, exert influence on others and has them rallying behind him ... only he's not looking to lead a revolution, whether through legitimate or less than legitimate means.

He works within the constraints that already exist within magical society, when he is somebody who has the capacity to enact significant change. He pushes for incremental, maybe even infinitely small changes that the existing system allows.

The existing system of laws and rules is the status quo, and there's no reason to suggest it should occupy any moral high ground when exclusion and discrimination is what allows it to exist. Consider the place in society that anybody who's not a pureblood witch or wizard occupies. Here, I also include those purebloods who also have creature status, because that automatically renders their blood purity irrelevant. As is the case with Remus Lupin or Hagrid; Remus got to go to Hogwarts and became a teacher, and Hagrid got to stay at Hogwarts and work, but he had his wand snapped and his magical education interrupted.

Now, to remove said exclusion and discrimination by a significant extent, one can't avoid a double standard. You will have to create an enemy and work to eradicate it.

And Dumbledore doesn't want to do that.

I respect that, but I don't accept that he did everything he could without the caveat that the only constraints that exist are the ones he imposed upon himself.

Precisely because he doesn't want to be Voldemort or Grindelwald.

It's not that he doesn't want half-giants or werewolves to have access to magical education, and to use wands, but rather that he sees no legitimate means within the existing system (to do so in a reasonable time frame). But there is no way out of existing power structures without imposing another, and Dumbledore refuses to impose. That's perfectly fine, but it's wrong to say he's not able to do it.

On the subject of 'concentrated efforts of talented and trained people,' let's not forget that Dumbledore has access, albeit more limited than the entirety of magical Britain, to just that. There is evidence within the books that he exerts influence on every level of society, from squibs, giants, and werewolves, to barely of age wizards and high ranking Ministry officials.

The only thing that prevents him from going further than he already has is his refusal to label any particular group an enemy. He sets a hard limit on what the Order does and where it's willing to go. Is there way to restructure society without creating and eradicating an enemy, based on political distinction? As you correctly point out, 'he believes in people and the value of structured society,' and that's a choice he makes everyday, but is there something that could make him reconsider?

All it takes is one exceptional event, one triggering moment.

It didn't happen in the books, but it's not implausible to suggest that such an event or events could set Dumbledore onto a different course. But for the books to exist as they do, it is necessary for Dumbledore to exist as he does. A Dumbledore who's not broken and tired renders Harry Potter and the prophecy obsolete in the face of Voldemort, or any other threat. If that's the case, the story as we know it cannot exist.

Summarising the above: Dumbledore stays at the table and plays the game everybody else is. It is, however, wrong to suggest he's unable to throw out the table and set up a new board, with new rules and game pieces. He chooses not to, and that's a legitimate and respectable choice. However, it's also wrong to imply that the existing structures of magical society aren't dependent on real discrimination to function.

Now that I think about it, perhaps where we differ isn't so much on Dumbledore and what he can do, but more so on the merits of the status quo. In non fiction terms, my firm belief is that democracy isn't real and operates on necessary exclusion and discrimination to function, and returning to a magical world ... I find it quite boring to accept a 1-to-1 analogy of our world and theirs. In our world, I have no real viable alternative, but in a world with magic .... everything remains possible.

But returning to Dumbledore, maybe it's more accurate to say that he has the potential to change everything, from a political standpoint, but he tries his best to not do so, because of his ethical standpoint.

 

Yes, it did. That's Dumbledore's entire backstory.

And for that matter, just because someone can technically murder his political opponents and doesn't, does not mean that they are not doing everything they can for their political agenda. That is mad.

 

After Arianna and Grindelwald, there is nothing that happens that puts Dumbledore off the course he'd set upon.

What I said doesn't happen in the books is literally not his backstory.

Further, I didn't suggest outright murder or genocide.

You're welcome to think of my position, or myself, as being mad and wrong.

 

The events leading up to Arianna's death were absolutely Dumbledore wanting to 'enact significant change' and 'going further' as you put it. He was of one mind with Grindelwald at one point. That is his whole character's point. That he could have, almost did, and escaped that folly only through personal tragedy.

Bruh. You didn't suggest it; you stated it.

You're not even generally wrong that there's another path Dumbledore could have taken and that it would be interesting to see; it's just that it did happen. Dumbledore has literally had that character arc already. He's been there in his youth and he knows better.

 

No, I didn't.

You don't need to kill the enemy to eradicate it, but you need to have a clear view on who the enemy is.

Whatever Dumbledore is doing, hence my initial stance of (in)action(s), is not enough to drive serious fundamental change.

Voldemort, while I disagree with everything he stands for, has a clear political aim. He has an enemy to defeat.

Dumbledore doesn't. The Order is reactionary to the Death Eaters and Voldemort, but they have no political content of their own.

There are things that could be on their agenda, that would directly oppose and go against, not just stop, what Voldemort and the purebloods want.

And note that I said 'defeat' here, but let's stick with 'eradicate' seeing as I first said that. One can be reductionist and decide I mean genocide and murder, but given the larger context of what I've been writing, it's not unreasonable to interpret it as my meaning 'to remove completely.'

The 'enemy' here isn't a person. Removing a person or set of persons doesn't erase their political plan.

How do you render their political plan impotent? You show them there's an alternative, there's a better way.

You don't have to kill Voldemort, Umbridge, Fudge, or Malfoy. If anything, it's way better if you don't do that.

But you need to show there's a better way.

I'm arguing that Dumbledore doesn't do that.

He operates within the existing framework, rather than trying to change the framework.

He tried to do it before and he failed, and he knows better than to do that again in the same way.

But there are other ways to enact change.

It's canonical that Dumbledore can exert political influence: from Mrs Figg and Dung Fletcher, to the Potters, Kingsley Shacklebolt, and I could go on.

He can rally all these people together, from all walks of life, unite them against Voldemort, and that's good.

But is that good enough? What happens when Voldemort is gone, is magical society fine as it is?

There's clear and deliberate segregation among and across sentient magical creatures.

But Dumbledore doesn't go there, and yes, it's because of what happened with Grindelwald. I'm not arguing that Grindelwald had the right idea, he didn't. I'm arguing that Dumbledore stops just short of driving political change.

I'm not saying he could unite the entire magical world, but if there's somebody in the series that could do more than just oppose Voldemort, but also come up with a new plan for a new world, it's him.

But if he does that, there's no Harry Potter story as we know it. The importance of Harry Potter hinges on Dumbledore giving up, and deciding he's too dangerous to go out and exercise change. It's canon that he doesn't want to be Minister, and that's fine, he doesn't need to want that.

All I'm saying is, he could. Or he could guide somebody else to be. There are other ways, and murder and genocide is never a viable answer.

The way to do it is to alter the collective consciousness, and to help guide them towards another mode of living.

But to do that, there needs to be agreement on who the enemy is and why their ideas aren't the only option. The enemy isn't just Voldemort, it's the very ideas upon which magical society operates under. There is no space for political change if there is no space for real, viable alternatives.

The larger point I'm alluding to is that real life is depressing enough. I want to see the possibility for real change in a world where magic can facilitate that change, where there are different sets of constraints and different stakes.

This is also why I began my response to you with that first paragraph, but you seem quite intent on proving there's a right and wrong way to read a character in a book. I don't think what I'm suggesting is so out of left field and so far removed from any shred of logic.

 

Even if only 1 in 100 generational wizards would use their power to overthrow the government and install their preferred power structure, that is 1 too many for purebloods to perpetually hold power.

The question is how to guarantee continued pureblood power and the only way to guarantee it is to eliminate any possibility of a single wizard who in powerful enough to overthrow the government on their own.

 

I think purebloods get their power from being in the government structures (early on — the wizengamot — leading to generational wealth, and now the Ministry).

Won't the purebloods just align with the generational wizard as long as they are not a target? I see purebloods as the enablers of power rather than holding the power themselves.

 

Killing off all the young, talented wizards would make them weaker over time and they would eventually get overrun by vampires and trolls and whatever else if a single talented wizard didn't slip through their increasingly dated radar- I doubt you could have told Dumbledore was going to be as powerful as he eventually became as a kid. If they let them live, the simple majority at the very least would seek to uphold the system, even against internal threats.