deathtocapslock | The Hogwarts House System, and its Connexion to the Politics of the Wizarding World

for-diddled.livejournal.com posting in

I’m not entirely sure that this is the best place to post this essay, but as it concerns issues which we frequently comment about here, I thought I might as well share it with you. As you may be able to guess from the title, it contains my thoughts on the House system and how it connects to the politics of the wizarding world. Enjoy! :)

Theoretically, at least, the Sorting Hat sorts students based upon their innate personalities; thus, brave students go into Gryffindor, clever ones into Ravenclaw, hard-working ones into Hufflepuff and cunning ones into Slytherin. It seems unlikely, however, that this is the only – or even the main – factor in the Hat’s choice. For a start, we know that certain families tend towards certain Houses (the Weasleys all seem to be Gryffindors, for example, whilst Draco’s ancestors were apparently all in Slytherin). Family members do not all share the same personality, however, and, if personality were the main factor in the Hat’s choice, we would expect virtually every family to have members in each House. Secondly, many people seem to have been sorted into the “wrong” House; Crabbe and Goyle, for example, never display any signs of cunning or ambition, and Albus Dumbledore seems more like a Ravenclaw or Slytherin than a Gryffindor. This would be more explicable if we take the view that the main factor in students’ House choices is, in fact, their own personal preferences. The wizarding world seems fairly corporatist, and family unity is highly prized (hence, for example, the Weasleys’ anger when Percy chooses to side with the Ministry over his father), so it seems quite likely that children would have a strong preference towards being sorted into their parents’ House; this would also explain the fact that students frequently seem not to display their House’s preferred qualities to any great degree.

Wizarding politics seems to be mostly split between those who support the rights of the old Pureblood families, and those who advocate greater inclusion of Muggleborns into wizarding society and politics. This division seems to be reflected in the school House system. Slytherin House’s reputation as the home of the rich and privileged and a bastion of Pureblood supremacy suggests that it is the House of choice for pro-Purebloods; Godric Gryffindor, on the other hand, was described by Rowling as “an enlightened fighter against anti-Muggle discrimination”, suggesting that, from the beginning, his House has been associated with the pro-Muggleborns. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff don’t seem so strongly aligned; possibly they are both halfway houses (no pun intended), containing a mixture of pro-Purebloods and pro-Muggleborns, and aligning themselves with whichever political faction currently has the upper hand.

The fact that Slytherin and Gryffindor apparently clashed over whether or not to include Muggleborns suggests that this issue has been an important one in wizarding politics for many centuries. As society’s attitudes are never static, the balance of power will probably have swung like a pendulum from one side to another, with first the Pureblood Faction, then the Muggleborn, having the upper hand. At the time of the HP novels, it seems that the pro-Muggleborns are in control; not only does Mr. Borgin complain that “wizarding blood is counting for less and less everywhere”, the alignment of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff Houses with Gryffindor against Slytherin would make more sense if the political winds were blowing in the former’s favour. It would also explain why Voldemort’s followers mostly seem to be from Slytherin House: rich aristocrats are usually the least likely to try and overthrow the established order, having as they do the most to lose and the least to gain; if, however, they’ve felt their power and influence being eroded over the past decades, and this process seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future, they might be tempted to rise up in rebellion in order to prevent this from happening.

It seems likely that most Dark Wizards come from whichever faction is currently losing. As of the late twentieth century, this means that Voldemort and most of his supporters are from Slytherin; when the Purebloods had the most influence, Gryffindor was probably the “dark” House. Which brings us onto a certain infamous line: in PS, when Harry is worried about being sorted into Hufflepuff, Hagrid consoles him by saying that Hufflepuff is better than Slytherin, adding that “There’s not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn’t in Slytherin.” At first glance, this seems ridiculous (what, so there were literally no Dark Wizards over the past millennium who were in Gryffindor, Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw?), but it may be that Hagrid’s definition of “goin’ bad” isn’t the same as most people’s. By way of analogy to Muggle dictators, Slytherin Dark Wizards would mostly be like General Franco, trying to return the wizarding world to a mythical golden age before their society was corrupted by foreign elements. Gryffindor ones, on the other hand, would be more like communist revolutionaries, trying to overthrow those in power to create a more egalitarian society. Hagrid’s blood status makes him a natural member of the Gryffindor faction, and it seems quite likely that he would sympathise with the aims, if not the methods, of these Gryffindor Dark Wizards. If this is the case, then it may be that he doesn’t consider any Gryffindor Dark Wizard to be bad – misguided, certainly, but not evil, unlike the Slytherins, who want to keep people like him down and deny them equal rights and opportunities. From his point of view, therefore, “All bad wizards are Slytherins” might be a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

The Gryffindor House-Slytherin House hostility also makes more sense when viewed through this lens. From the Gryffindors’ point of view, the Slytherins certainly are despicable: they’re seen as stupid and ugly (and yet, at the same time, as a dangerous threat, mirroring many real-world examples of prejudice), and virtually anything they do is considered bad by default, even when, in objective terms, they’re often little worse or even better than the Gryffindors (see, for example, practically any chapter in any Harry Potter book). This would be extremely over-the-top if it were a simple example of inter-House rivalry; if seen as a continuation of a centuries-old feud, however, it seems more explicable. (As mentioned above, wizarding society is very corporatist, so it seems quite likely that children would inherit their parents’ political views.) It also explains the hatred of the Malfoys for the Weasleys: as an old Pureblood family, the Weasleys would seem to be natural Optimates (indeed, it may be that they were until a few generations ago, which would explain why they are still Pureblood despite being so pro-Muggle), and thus would be considered class traitors by the Malfoys.

We aren’t really told the Slytherin view in the books, probably because Harry aligns his world-view almost entirely with the Gryffindors. This makes the Slytherins come across as ridiculous caricatures in places; if viewed through the lens of “Harry Potter as political propaganda”, however, their characterisation starts to make more sense.

Current Mood: accomplished
Current Location: Wizarding Britain

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

/Nor did they give the Dursleys any money to aid in Harry's upbringing, either when they first abandoned him on their doorstep, or anytime in the ensuing 10 years.../

They could have easily made available the Potters money to take care of Harry - and someone in the wizarding world could have been made executer of the estate or something like that to make sure the Dursley's didn't steal the money.

Besides, IRL most of the times a 11 year old kid isn't given access to money like that. Usually an adult/gardian will oversee if both parents have died.

Besides If they didn't trust the Potter money in the hands of the dursley's why would they trust the baby?

From:

majorjune.livejournal.com

I'm not saying that the Dursleys should have had direct access to the Potter funds (and something tells me that as Muggles, they wouldn't have been able to access it), and obviously Harry was too young to manage his own economic affairs.

What I am saying is that the wizarding community in general, and DD in particular, was assuming a lot just by abandoning Harry on his aunt's doorstep, with little explanation, and expecting them to raise him for the next 10 years. They're lucky that Petunia and Vernon didn't just call Social Services the next day and say "Hey, someone dumped this unknown kid on our doorstep last night, we don't know who he is, come take him off of our hands!"

The least the wizarding community could have done was to see that the Dursley's got a yearly stipend to help with the costs of raising a child who was unexpectedly dumped on them. If Petunia and Vernon knew that they'd at least be reimbursed, and maybe even make a little cash in the process, then their attitude towards Harry could have been very different.

Hell, in the Muggle world the state does that as a matter of routine for foster parents, so why not in the wizarding world?

From:

seductivedark.livejournal.com

I completely agree. The money was meant for Harry anyway, didn't Hagrid say something about that in PS/SS? That the Potters wouldn't have left him penniless or something? You'd think there would have been an allowance given to the people who took over their job of raising the child once they died, a stipend from a trust, and if the Potters, who knew they were on Voldemort's black-list, didn't bother to set something up then the WW should have.

Vernon's pretty successful later on but at the time Harry was abandoned on his doorstep he was probably still just a struggling junior salesman or whatever it is he did, with a young wife and infant son of his own to support. There was no reason on earth for the WW to withhold the means with which to raise baby Harry from the people who were actually raising him.

From:

borg-princess.livejournal.com

There was no reason on earth for the WW to withhold the means with which to raise baby Harry from the people who were actually raising him.

Yeah, but the Dursleys shouldn't need money! They should be willing to look after him out of the goodness of their hearts! *eyeroll*

I pointed this out on the HP common room and people were just like, 'oh, if we had a baby passed on to us by our relatives, we wouldn't need compensation,' and I'm just thinking, that's great for them, but there's the fact that Lily and Petunia weren't on the most positive terms, and then that they would've had financial issues trying to support another child and paying for his schooling and everything, so...yeah. It wasn't really fair. Pretty sucky of the WW, but hey, that's par for the course. These Muggles have to babysit their future savior for over a decade, it's an honor, they shouldn't need any support! /sarcasm

From:

oryx_leucoryx

Yes, there is a difference between dealing with an unexpected situation and being the one landing such unexpected situation on another.

Heck, if one or more of my nieces/nephews landed in my care I'd obviously care for hir, but I would also be concerned how this unplanned turn of events might impact my own daughter's future, or even our retirement plans, and any compensation would help put my mind at ease.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Heck, if one or more of my nieces/nephews landed in my care I'd obviously care for hir, but I would also be concerned how this unplanned turn of events might impact my own daughter's future, or even our retirement plans, and any compensation would help put my mind at ease.

Yes, it's not like most people are gonna throw the kids on the street. The Dursley's are questionable but for the plot they were meant to be nasty, but they didn't abandon him on the street. Unlike the magical people who one would think would be feel just as responsible for him, hell DD should have felt a million times more responsible for him than the Dursley's.

But, taking Real life situations. If any of my cousins died and happened to leave their small children to me then I'd have to buy a bigger house, there just isn't room for small children and there would have to be a lot of changes around here to accomidate a young child.

JKR's issue is she only gives the Dursley's a flat one dementional appearance. We're expected to see them as bad people, unlike their counter image the Weasley's who we are supposed to see as wonderful responsible people who love everyone.

Now granted I love my cousins little kids and would do anything for them but it would be a huge adjustment to have to bring them into my life 24/7. And with the Dursley's you are dealing with people who are dead set against Lily's lifestyle.

Which in retrospect I don't get, I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the housework done with a wave of the wand. If I had a sister who could do magic I certainly wouldn't be opposed to her coming over and helping me with housework.

JKR for her idea of the plot had to make it tragic and horrible for Harry. I guess it wasn't tragic enough that his parents got murdered, but that he had to live with horrible people to make him less arrogant...or something.

Even in the end she has Dudley become 'mr. nice guy' - I would have prefered it be Petunia who had the change. It would have meant more to me if Petunia and Harry had been able to resolve something instead of Harry and Dudley. I think I would have gotten more out of it if she had been the one to come to some kinda forgiveness and redemption.

From:

majorjune.livejournal.com

If I had a sister who could do magic I certainly wouldn't be opposed to her coming over and helping me with housework.

Hell, if I had a sister who could do magik, I'd drag her with me to the nearest casino! LOL

Then I'd have her brew me a potion to make me lose weight, another to prevent me from regaining weight no matter what I ate, and then I'd patent the stuff and then get in touch with a major pharmaceutical company to market both potions to the masses! =:-o

From:

majorjune.livejournal.com

I pointed this out on the HP common room and people were just like, 'oh, if we had a baby passed on to us by our relatives, we wouldn't need compensation,'

That's fine for them, but lots of other people, while willing to take in an orphaned relative, would still be hard-pressed financially and could do with whatever assistance is available and provided.

I know that in my state, when an orphaned kid is taken in by relatives, DCYF has a program to provide financial assistance to the adopting relatives. It's not a heck of a lot, but at least it's something.

Considering there was this vast Potter fortune just sitting in Gringotts all that time, it really is unforgiveable that some of it wasn't made available to Harry via his guardians for the 10 years he lived with them.

From:

borg-princess.livejournal.com

ITA. Considering the wizarding view of Muggles, though, I'm not surprised. They're barely human in the wizards' eyes, they have no rights or privileges. *shakes head*

From:

majorjune.livejournal.com

ITA. Considering the wizarding view of Muggles, though, I'm not surprised. They're barely human in the wizards' eyes, they have no rights or privileges. *shakes head*

Considering the wizarding view of Muggles, it makes it even less understandable why they would entrust The Boy Who Lived to Muggles... *shakes head also* :-)

From:

seductivedark.livejournal.com

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to raise a child. The Dursleys should have had compensation. Hagrid was all like, "Yeah, your parents were rich, they provided for you, what'd you expect from such wonderful people..." and so on. But, providing for the child in case of dire eventualities, esp. when they knew they were targeted for death, would have made them more responsible. Instead, good old Sirius was supposed to, I guess, spend his fortune raising the offspring of the alpha male...

Do the Marauders remind you of meercats?