Before Rubeus Hagrid arrives on the hut on the rock and informs Harry that he is a wizard, destined to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Harry Potter spends 10 years of his life living in a literal closet, his room, “the cupboard under the stairs.” As we heard Cody read in this selection from Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry’s Aunt and Uncle, Vernon and Petunia Dursley, have done everything in their power to “squash” the magic out of him, including belittling, neglecting, and withholding care and support. His Cousin Dudley is privileged and spoiled and allowed to bully and torment Harry. Harry is not allowed to ask questions and he lives an isolated existence.

The first sentence of the first book is: Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense. They expected Harry to fall in line, to be a normal boy, and, to save their normal existence, they lock him in his cupboard whenever he showed any accidental magic or imaginative thought. He is othered his entire existence, he is seen, as Aunt Petunia puts it “a freak.” Even after he begins school and there are wizards checking on Harry’s well being, during summer holidays, Harry’s wand and school things are locked in the cupboard under the stairs and his owl, Hedwig, is shut away in her cage. Anything shameful and different must be shut away, even those things which define Harry’s self-identity and self-worth. Harry must put away and hide who he is in order to survive living with his family.

In Genesis 37, family systems are also in full swing, with sibling rivalry taken to the extreme. The plot revolves around Joseph and his special coat, given to him by his doting father, Jacob. The story depicts this coat (or, depending on the editor or translation, the long robe with sleeves, a decorated robe, coat of many colors, or technicolor dreamcoat).

This coat embodies not only Joseph’s favored status with his father, but also the object of hatred for his brothers. You may recall that Joseph is a dreamer, and he describes his dreams to his brothers, dreams that envision his brothers bowing down before him. You can sympathize with Joseph’s brothers. I imagine that it might be hard, living with jealousy of Jacob’s favoritism and annoyed by Joseph’s dreams of superiority. The first mention of the brothers’ hatred towards Joseph comes immediately after Jacob gives him the robe. The text says that Joseph’s brothers “hated him even more because of his dreams and his words”, which implies that it could not have been only his words that inspired their enmity in the first place. After the gift of the robe, the tipping point, his brothers plot to kill him, then decide to sell him off into slavery, finally ripping the coat in pieces, dipping it in goat’s blood, and telling their father that his beloved Joseph was killed by a wild animal. Stories of sibling rivalry and favoritism by parents are common, but why does this particular robe generate so much hatred that it drives the brothers to get rid of Joseph and destroy it? Surely if this was such a fine robe, they would have kept it for themselves or sold it for a profit as they did Joseph. Why did it cause such distress for these brothers that it had to be obliterated?

The Hebrew phrase used to describe the robe, which is translated in many different ways, is used only one other time in the Hebrew scriptures. The phrase is: kethoneth passim. The only other time this phrase is used is in 2 Samuel, chapter 13 when describing Tamar’s garment: Now she was wearing a kethoneth passim; for this is how the virgin daughters of the kings were clothed in earlier times. Read in this context, Jacob gave his son, Joseph, a princess dress.

In her thesis, Jospeh in Drag, Jennifer Gates asks,
So why do we have so much confusion over this two-word phrase in our lexical entries and in the footnotes of various commentaries covering, in particular, the Genesis 37 passage focusing on this robe? I argue that the confusion comes in because Joseph, a male protagonist is wearing something that our text elsewhere defines as being specifically for women. Though it is true that separate from one another these words are used to describe many garments worn by many people, it is also true that these two words are only paired in two of our narratives, one of which specifically names this two-word phrase as being in reference to a garment worn by unmarried women.

I see this use of a phrase in only two places in the text as meant to raise notice. Language has the power to create the imagery within which we construct meaning. If the image is that of a garment a royal woman would wear, then it should be confusing to see a male-bodied person wearing this article of clothing.

Theodore W. Jennings writes, “But this dress is that of daughters; it is a woman‘s dress, or rather a girl‘s dress (the virgin daughters of the king), that Joseph’s father gives him to mark him as specially loved.” As part of Joseph‘s narrative, it may have functioned as one among a series of ways of othering him. As a modern queer reader looking in, that othering can take the form of seeing a young Joseph as transgender. Furthermore, if Joseph is deliberately crossing gender boundaries of personal expression then it makes sense that he might proudly have worn a garment meant for women. It makes sense that Jacob, himself a gender-boundary-pusher, might have bestowed such a garment upon his favored child.

When Tamar is raped by her brother in 2 Samuel 13:18, she tears her robe. The same phrase is used to describe her robe and here, it is specifically described as a robe or a dress that a virgin princess would wear. With the multiple times that clothing is described, often in great detail, when it is mentioned in our Hebrew biblical texts, it seems unlikely to me that this attention to detail would have escaped
the author(s) of Joseph‘s narrative. In which case this phrase–the same
as the phrase for Tamar‘s robe, was used purposefully to describe Joseph‘s attire in this
instance. And Joseph’s robe, too, is torn after his brothers violate him.

When the plot to kill Joseph takes shape, the text can be read as making reference to Joseph‘s distinctive style of dress, the brothers being able to distinguish Joseph‘s feminine appearance from a distance. The dress would most likely have looked out of place in the shepherding areas, out away from the spaces women normally occupied. Genesis says:
“They saw him from a distance, and before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him.”
In short, it is very possible that Joseph’s brothers were upset because their father gave Joseph a princess dress. Not only that, but Joseph was wearing it in the fields, in public, so they conspired to put a stop to it, and Jacob is left mourning his beloved son.

I briefly mentioned before and you may recall that Jacob was a gender non-conformist himself: Think of the comparisons made between he and his brother, Esau. Esau is hairy, Jacob is smooth; Esau is a hunter, Jacob stays in the tent with the women and cooks; Esau is favored by his father, Jacob by his mother. And yet Jacob is the chosen one who becomes Israel, who fathers a nation. God, it seems, is not concerned with human divisions and assigned gender roles. It is entirely probable that Jacob recognized Joseph‘s gender non-conformity and celebrated it. Ora Horn Prouser wrote: The giving of clothes is a positive and loving act, as seen in Jacob‘s gift to Joseph of the cloak (Gen. 37.3), and, (elsewhere in scripture), Hannah’s yearly gift of a garment to her son Samuel (1Sam. 2.19.). Notably, Samuel’s cloak is a very masculine thing: Samuel’s cloak, is the only external attribute ascribed to him in the book of Samuel. It is both a princely garment and a symbol of his calling and dignity. As such, if clothing is a marker of gender —such as Samuel’s cloak as a masculine marker— then Jacob’s gift of a feminine robe to Joseph, whether made or passed down, denotes a positive affirmation of Joseph‘s femininity. It is Joseph’s brothers that takes this gift of affirmation and defile it with shame and violence.

Human beings are very good at shutting away or getting rid of what we don’t understand, “it’s too hard to evolve, didn’t we already deal with that issue?, can’t they be “fixed”?, isn’t there a center they can go to where they would be more comfortable? Why do they need to invade our space with their needs?” We don’t like to be uncomfortable, and there are too many cupboards, pits, jail cells, conversion camps, and detention centers in this world that prove it.

Themes of racism, classism, sexism, and oppression are found on almost every page of the Harry Potter series. Rubeus Hagrid, the man who we meet in the very first chapter of the very first book, is first described to us this way: “He was almost twice as tall as a normal man and at least five times as wide. He looked simply too big to be allowed, and so wild – long tangles of bushy black hair and beard hid most of his face, he had hands the size of dustbin lids and his feet in leather boots were like baby dolphins. In his vast, muscular arms, he was holding a bundle of blankets.” This frightening looking man is immediately presented to us in a way that makes us re-think our first judgement of him. We must immediately examine our prejudices. He is entrusted with the delivery of baby Harry Potter, the perceived savior of the wizarding world, after the destruction of his home and murder of his parents. Dumbledore says to Professor McGonagall about entrusting Hagrid with this mission, “I would trust Hagrid with my life.” Hagrid becomes a trusted friend and confidante to Harry and his best friends, Ron and Hermione, and they become each other’s defenders. Hagrid is the one who delivers Harry’s acceptance letter to Hogwarts, takes him shopping for his special robe, bakes him his first birthday cake, and introduces him to the wizarding world. Hagrid cooks and serves tea and rock cakes at every opportunity, gardens (he is especially proud of his prize pumpkins), knits, openly weeps and expresses emotion, keeps his wand inside a flowery pink umbrella, cares tenderly for all living things (especially those others call monsters), and when he hatches his very own dragon, he beams with pride because Norbert “Knows his mummy.” Hagrid is a gender non-conformist himself. Hagrid even carries Harry tenderly in his arms once again in a very vulnerable moment at the end of the last book, bookending his loving, gentle nature.

We learn in the fourth book that Hagrid didn’t, as Ron guessed, get in the way of a bad engorgement charm when he was a kid, but is actually half-giant. Ron, who is often used by Rowling as a way to communicate the prejudices that are innate in children who grew up in the wizarding world, has to face his own racism as, after learning that Hagrid has giant blood, informs Harry that giants are “simply vicious, it’s in their natures.” And Harry immediately comes to the defense, “Who cares? There’s nothing wrong with Hagrid!” And of course there isn’t, Ron, Hermione, and Harry refuse to allow Hagrid to close himself off to them once his giant status becomes public. “Of course we still want to know you! “Harry says, “How could you think we’d care?” Later in the conversation, Hagrid responds to their reassurances:

Some don’t understand…there’s some who’d always hold it against yeh…there’s some who’d even pretend they just had big bones rather than stand up an’ say – I am what I am, an’ I’m not ashamed. Never be ashamed, my ol’ dad used ter say, there’s some who’ll hold it against you, but they’re not worth botherin’ with. An’ he was right.

Our assumptions are also challenged by the character of Remus Lupin, the kind and soft spoken man who was a best friend to Harry’s late father, who teaches Harry to protect himself from Dementors, evil creatures who have the ability to literally suck out your soul. At the end of the third book, Lupin is revealed to be a werewolf. Ron, once again, initially reverts to prejudice and kicks out with disgust “get away from me werewolf.” Lupin is described as shabby and skinny and, despite a potion that helps them keep their minds and become peaceful during the full moon, we find out that werewolves have trouble finding work and housing – living as impoverished outcasts in wizarding society. JK Rowling said: ‘Remus’ being part werewolf was a metaphor for ‘illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS. ‘All kinds of superstitions seem to surround blood-borne conditions, probably due to taboos surrounding blood itself. The wizarding community is as prone to hysteria and prejudice as the Muggle one, and the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes. He was bitten as a child by a man/werewolf who wanted revenge on Remus’ dad. After that he wasn’t allowed to play with other children for fear they would find out, and he alienated himself from society. If his condition was discovered, his parents would uproot their family and move. That was until Albus Dumbledore showed up and invited him to attend Hogwarts. There he made great friends in James Potter and Sirius Black, who described his lycanthropy as Lupin’s “furry little problem.” He grows to have a very happy life with true friends, a wife, and a child. All he needed to change his story was an invitation and acceptance.

Some people are blessed to grow up never questioning their worth, never having for a minute to wonder if they are loved completely and without condition. We are the lucky ones. For those who aren’t as blessed, when they are able to find their support system, their chosen family, the ones who not only help them survive, but thrive and grow and fulfill their calling, I have heard some of those stories, and they are magical. That’s what happened for Harry, Hagrid, and Lupin, and I think that’s what happened for Jospeh.

You may remember that all of that dream interpretation serves Joseph well and he ends up as the right hand man to the Pharaoh, helping Egypt survive a famine.

The Pharaoh bestows upon him a new identity, complete with a ring and Egyptian garb. When Joseph’s family comes to him to ask him for help, they do not recognize him. This seems strange, why wouldn’t they recognize their brother? In Stuart Macwilliam’s book, “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible” he says that here, Rabbinic description of Joseph seems to queer him: Free from anxieties, he turned his attention to his external appearance. He painted his eyes, dressed his hair, and aimed to be elegant in his walk. This sounds very similar to a description of Joseph in Queer Bible Commentary”: Twirling, mincing, in rainbow garb and with painted eyes, Joseph is a flaming young queen. In both cases, the authors describe a Joseph who queers masculinity at the very least or perhaps performs femininity in a male body. Joseph’s beauty runs counter to the norms that dictate how masculinity is to be performed. The word used to describe Joseph‘s beauty is the same used to describe Tamar’s, Rachel‘s, Esther‘s, and Sarai’s: Joseph’s beauty, then, falls into the larger scheme of naming female beauty, while also serving as another textual reminder that Joseph’s beauty is feminine.

Joseph’s brothers don’t recognize him because he didn’t leave his princess dress in the pit. He found his village, was able to use his gifts, and became a fully actualized person, in his own right. He saves the lives of his family and reunites himself with his beloved father as the person he always was, the dreamer his dad would recognize, not the normal shepherd boy his brothers so desperately wanted him to be.
Hogwarts similarly transforms Harry. He gains confidence, makes true friends, finds a place in a chosen family, and becomes the person who can save the wizarding world, not with isolation and division, but with love and disarmament. He couldn’t cram himself back into that cupboard under the stairs if he wanted to, he just wouldn’t fit. He found his purpose and grew fully into it.

History has taught us and fantasy has affirmed, humanity can’t have the magic beaten, crushed, demeaned out of us, and if Harry has taught us anything, it’s that no one should have to live in a cupboard.

For Joseph, affirmation and acceptance started with a princess dress, for Harry it was a letter:

“Harry picked it up and stared at it, his heart twanging like a giant elastic band. No one, ever, in his whole life, had written to him. Who would? He had no friends, no other relatives — he didn’t belong to the library, so he’d never even got rude notes asking for books back. Yet here it was, a letter, addressed so plainly there could be no mistake:

Mr. H. Potter
The Cupboard under the Stairs
4 Privet Drive
Little Whinging
Surrey”

A simple invitation to come out and be himself, fully and without shame. How many Harrys have to be locked away in cupboards before their unique magic is allowed to disrupt our sense of “normalcy?” How many Josephs, how much of creation, have to be tossed into a pit, cut off from life-giving compassion and love until we get it?

Wherever you are today, sitting in the darkness alone, waiting for the letter of invitation to arrive – or the one holding the parchment and quill…

Whether you are the one dreaming of the freedom of acceptance so true that you can wear it like a robe and dance through the fields, or the ones contemplating whether some are so irksome they should just be thrown in a pit, you are welcome here and I believe, whether clothed in wizard’s robes or princess dresses, that you have magic and wisdom to share… and I hope that here, you can come out of your cupboard and be safe, be loved, be whole. Amen.

8/12/2018

Talia Raymond