Wizarding aristocracy (rather long)

[Marvin Long]

No: HPFGUIDX 9726

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Ebony " <ebonyink at h...> wrote:
> Welcome, Marvin!

> 
> I suspect that this idea of "aristocracy", with its implied 
> connotations of hierarchy, is much more widespread in the wizarding 
> world than we've been led to believe.  Hogwarts is under the
control 
> of Dumbledore... and we've seen indication in canon that his views 
> are not always in sync with the community.  This is similar to our 
> own "Muggle" world, where the values and mores of colleges and 
> universities--often run by faculty who were trained during the 
> postmodern revolutions of the 60s and 70s--are often disconnected 
> from the worldviews of contemporary society.  

If JKR is patterning the wizarding world on Britain, then there's
probably a Lords/Commons split in magical society, perhaps one more
pronounced than what exists today since one doesn't get the feeling
that the wizarding world has heavily influenced by Marx and Engles,
say.  

I wonder if Britain has any magic schools other than Hogwarts...surely
one school per country isn't enough to educate all the wizards and
witches who populate the magical world!  I seem to recall seeing it
implied that Hogwarts takes all kids with magical ability, but that
strikes me as improbable.  My guess is that they offer places to
children based on parentage (Hogwarts being the most prestigious of
institutions) and talent; and kids who don't meet the criteria go to
lesser schools or maybe even the wizarding equivalent of
trade-school.  That, or Hogwarts must have a LOT of dropouts....

> One does wonder how widespread anti-Muggle and anti-Mudblood 
> sentiment really is outside of Dumbledore's protective bubble. 
Also 
> curious to know about the structure of the Ministry... does the 
> magical community have any similarities to the socialist/welfare 
> states?  Or is it mainly capitalist?  If it is capitalist, how does 
> this world deal with poverty?

I have no idea...I wonder if there are wizards who "slum" by getting
jobs in the Muggle world if they can't find a position in the
wizarding occupations.  I get the impression that their world tends
towards a kind of relaxed oligarchy.

> Great post, Marvin.  These are some of the very issues that I'm
most 
> intrigued about in canon.  I'd really like to see where JKR goes
with 
> this.

Thank you!  And, me too.
 
> BTW, you have a BA in Philosophy?  I never took a single course in 
> that field while in undergrad... and yet, somehow ended up with the 
> History of Rhetoric with a focus on the Sophists and Aristotle on
my 
> winter term schedule.  Any pointers on how to plow through the more 
> abstract readings?  They're Greek to me.  ;-)

I'll try, but -- Disclaimer!  It's been 10 years since I studied any
Greek philosophy, it wasn't my focus, and mostly we concentrated on
ethics and metaphysics. -- take what I say with a grain of salt.

In a practical sense, the history of rhetoric is often said to begin
with the sophists and Big A, so it makes sense that you would study
this period.  Despite the negative connotations of the word
"sophistry" (and despite the fact that Plato writes Socrates as
hammering on these guys all the time), sophists are not necessarily
the wily or mendacious bastards they are stereotyped as being (but
yeah, sometimes they are).

In general, sophists were a class of people created as a byproduct of
both Athenian democracy and Athenian empire, which needed people
skilled in oratory and in the various bureaucratic tasks a burgeoning
state requires.  Sometimes sophists were teachers, but often they were
what you might call government wonks, people who made a point of
educating themselves in the skills that would be useful to the state. 
So sophists might be said to be students and teachers of the "art of
how to get a job in this new form of government where people who used
to be aristocrats can suddenly be held accountable to voters."

One of the more famous sophists is Alcibiades, a charismatic young
aristocrat who helped undermine Athenian democracy and provoke the
Peloponesian war.  His "might makes right" philsophy is parodied and
rebuked by Socrates, whose constant asking of the question "why" is
shown as an irritation to people whose mode of thinking is seek
answers to the question "how (to get x done)."

To wrap all that up, I would suggest that you try to think of sophists
as students of practical politics in the context of their
time...they're a little like the policy consultants who buzz like
flies around Washington DC always hoping for some kind of
administration job in which to test their theories of government. 
There was a real need for them, even though their motives and methods
might often be questioned.

Aristotle marks the departure of sophistry and rhetoric from being a
method of practical politics to being a method of empirical inquiry. 
Aristotle formulated the basic rules of syllogistic logic so that
people would have a method to evaluate the truth of their own (and
other people's) reasoning.  Aristotle was a pragmatic sort who was
interested both in truth and in the art of getting results...he
studied society in fairly scientific manner (Nicomachean Ethics) and
found that the art of argument could be improved for both political
and truth-seeking purposes.  He probably saw these things as related,
since knowing the truth could, one presumes, only help a person
succeed -- though speaking it might not always be a bonus!

Ok, that's about the limit of my understanding.  One other thing; if
you're having to read Greek philosophy and have trouble understanding,
then make a point of figuring out what specific terms mean. 
Especially in translation, a lot of words that might seem like
everyday English will have technical connotations which, if not
understood, can render a passage unintelligble.  A good glossary or
dictionary of philsophical terms can be pretty handy.

Marvin (ps, what's your major/discipline, that you get to study
history of rhetoric?)