![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
for-diddled.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockI’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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: don't mind me, got a little carried away here...
Date: 2010-10-15 01:08 pm (UTC)But we see adults do wandless magic don't we? hum, I can't remember now, wait, Wasn't Snape able to just look in Harry's eyes and see the potions book? Because I remember harry thinking he knew what Snape was going to do but couldn't stop him. It was when Harry had used the septemsepra spell on Draco. I don't remmeber Snape yelling out the spell or having a wand in hand.
Seems like there are a couple of wizards who get to a point of being powerful enough for certain magic they don't need a wand.
The spells kids do underage seem pretty powerful even though most of it is not controled - however 9 year old Lily seemed quite capable of controling her ability to 'float' off the swing. Didn't see do a flip to while dismounting?
Severus drops a big old branch on Penutia - enough to almost knock her down but it isn't really directed magic I don't think, it mostly seems reactionary to somethin. Like when harry was bullied it was magic helping him escape. Severus' seem to be a reaction to being emotionally hurt/attacked.
But the point is that magic seems just as powerful without a wand so I'm assuming it would register on whatever magical equipment the Ministry has to sense magic. Though maybe it is just setup to only track people with wands. But what happens when a wizard is powerful enough to not use a wand. Besides, did that magic tracking equipment or whatever the Ministry is using help them track down Voldemort? or is it only honed in on people from 11 to 17 =p
/And as for the restriction of underage magic, it's more likely that an inexperienced magic-user will get something catastrophically wrong, and though wizarding parents may be able to cope with it, Muggles wouldn't./
As opposed to a adult Voldemort going around killing people? Catastrophically seems a mild tern as to what adult magical people sometimes do.
I mean ya know where was the Ministry when the twins were trying to get Ron to do an unbreakable vow?
Re: don't mind me, got a little carried away here...
Date: 2010-10-15 02:18 pm (UTC)Also, kids with wands who have started school are *not* technically allowed to actually cast spells during the breaks - only to do book work. Whatever scene in the movie you are thinking of with Harry under the blankets has got to be simply wrong if it does show him casting spells.
That said, the decree itself is not really *enforceable* for children born to wizarding families - since the Ministry can't apparently detect from afar which person cast the spell, just that magic was done. In a wizarding household there would be no way to distinguish a kid's spellcasting from the adults' without testing the wands, so essentially, wizarding kids get a free pass. Muggleborn kids however are hampered by the law, because they don't have the ability to pass off their spellcasting as done by adults in the area. Which has led some people to speculate that the Decree is actually a subtle bit of anti-Muggleborn legislation. Or at the very least a bit of legislation intended only for political appeal (to make it seem like 'See? We're making sure half-trained kids with wands aren't running around putting people in danger or breaking the Statute of Secrecy or anything like that!' without actually disrupting powerful all-wizarding (esp. pureblood) families' ability to give their children extra instruction at home in, ah, non-Hogwarts-approved material whenever they please. Muggleborns would just be collateral damage in this scenario.)
Re: don't mind me, got a little carried away here...
Date: 2010-10-15 09:55 pm (UTC)As I said, harder. Not impossible. Snape, Voldemort, Dumbledore, and all Animagi are capable of some forms of wandless magic, but I get the impression that the average witch or wizard isn't.
As opposed to a adult Voldemort going around killing people? Catastrophically seems a mild tern as to what adult magical people sometimes do.
I mean ya know where was the Ministry when the twins were trying to get Ron to do an unbreakable vow?
Voldemort's shenanigans are what Aurors are for. Children don't merit the full force of the law, but do need to be controlled. As for Ron's near-Unbreakable Vow, the Wizarding World seems to place great confidence in a child's parents or guardians (see no one checking up on Harry and Neville's family getting away with all those lethal tests).