Bloodline, Class, House and moral choice (was: Potterverse Racism...)

[chthonia9 <chthonicdancer@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47975

I realise that some of this touches on issues raised in
Shaalwyd's 
post 47885, but I wrote this before I read that, and couldn't
think 
of an efficient way to answer directly...)

In a couple of previous posts, I wrote:
>Given that a major theme in the books is that 
>racism and prejudice are stupid and wrong, isn't this >somewhat 
contradicted by the ways character traits
>seem to run in families in thePotterverse?
>[snip] it seems that bloodlines do indeed have a
>significance [snip]
 
and Jim responded:
> This is a large part of the point I was trying to
> make in my posts under the "Classist Hogwarts" re line

Thanks again Jim for the reference to this. Now that my friendly list-
elf has given me some hints about how to use the search facility (ta 
muchly!) I've gone back and read that thread.  Not quite what I
was 
trying to get at, but interesting.  Class...oh Merlin, lets not go 
there – my head is starting to spin trying to differentiate the 
issues of class, race, bloodline, magical aptitude, intelligence, 
wealth, personality and character, all of which are distinct from one 
another IMO, and discussion of which is so difficult in our cross-
cultural community to which we each bring along different definitions 
and cultural baggage.

I've been trying to get my head round these different factors. 
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that:
-Hogwarts is the only wizard school in the UK
-Every magical child gets a place
-No-one has to pay `at point of delivery' (*Never* is it
mentioned in 
canon that there are fees, only that you have to buy your own 
supplies. The initial worry Harry had about money in PS/SS is based 
on his application of MW [Muggleworld] assumptions to the WW, and if 
there *were* fees I'm sure Draco would have taunted Ron about it
by 
now)

then this is how I see the various factors differing from each other, 
and how they impacts on life in the WW:

-Class (using the UK sense of who your ancestors were and what they 
did)
Not relevant in terms of Hogwarts admission
Probably important wrt post-Hogwarts career, possibly (cf MW-UK) more 
in some fields than others

-Race (ethnicity)
Appears to be completely irrelevant, of itself, in and out of Hogwarts

-Purity of bloodline (ie is one 100% wizard?  This is a different 
issue to *class* IMO, because it cuts across social boundaries)
Not relevant in terms of Hogwarts admission (providing magical 
aptitude is present)
Crucial for career in upper echelons of Fudge's MoM.  Unclear how 
important it is elsewhere – clearly not as important as Mr Malfoy 
would like it to be.

It is important to keep the above three distinct: WW purebloodedness 
does *not* equate to either class or race, so sociological 
comparisons of WW prejudice with that in the UK or US run the risk of 
going awry.

-Magical Aptitude
The one essential criterion that gets you in or keeps you out of 
Hogwarts - any at all and you're in
Affects career post-Hogwarts in that what you're capable of will
have 
an impact on what job you can take on

-Intelligence (and diligence...)
Not relevant to Hogwarts admission
OWL and NEWT results affect post-Hogwarts career, but will not make 
up for lack of purebloodedness (and class?) in MoM hierarchy

-Wealth
Not relevant to Hogwarts admission
Presumably affects post-Hogwarts career in similar way as in MW? 
Don't know enough about WW economics to guess at exact dynamic.

-Personality (ie personal preferences and priorities as defined by 
the sorting hat – I wouldn't correlate it to Myers-Briggs
type 
analyses because clearly there is variation within Gryffindor [and 
presumably the other houses])
Not relevant to Hogwarts admission
Ostensibly key to Sorting ceremony
Will obviously influence one's preference of post-Hogwarts
occupation

-Character (integrity, being true to self, whatever that self is)
Not relevant to Hogwarts admission
Seen to be key to moral choices, how one directs one's life-path

The differentiation between personality and character is a difficult 
one, but IMO is important if we aren't to fall into the trap of 
assuming, for example, that only Gryffindors can be heroes.  Others 
can be heroes in their own way, using their own particular 
aptitudes.  Roughly, I see the difference as `
personality'/house 
defining what someone would most value when push came to shove, and 
character determining whether s/he had the guts to go with that 
choice.

This can lead into some sticky territory when considering good and 
evil; arguably, for example, it is Peter Pettigrew's lack of 
character that lets him down, so he slides/lets himself be used. The 
moral danger for members of Slytherin house is that valuing ambition 
above all is the most likely to lead into moral danger: for example 
ambition + weak character = jealousy and petty backstabbing, and 
ambition + strong character = grasping for power regardless of all 
else.  The moral choice for the Slytherin, then, is the *direction* 
that his/her ambition will take.  IMO other houses are a bit safer
– 
a Ravenclaw could take some dark and twisted roads seeking to *know*, 
a Hufflepuff could be unfailingly loyal to something evil, but 
neither of these are inherently selfish a la Slyth ("power-
hungry", "of great ambition" – GoF Sorting;
"cunning", "use any means 
to achieve their ends" – PP/SS Sorting). Members of other
houses are 
left more room for their drives to be tempered by their relationships 
to other people.  I generalise, of course, as I'm trying to see
some 
structure behind all the possible shades of grey.

I strikes me as being a very strange system that groups students in 
such a way that amplifies people's natural mistrust of 
characteristics that are different to their own – surely it is 
precisely those other traits that students to develop in order to 
balance the vices inherent in their own virtues?  I wonder to what 
extent JKR has thought that through?  I suppose it's possible
that 
keeping people with similar personal qualities together helps those 
qualities develop, and perhaps that sort of security is crucial to 
the magical development of young wizards.  But at least they have 
classes with other `types' of student.

Hmmm.  Got a bit sidetracked there.

Pippin said:
>One thing that wasn't pointed out in this
>thread or in Jim's is that it would be easier
>to avoid racism and prejudice if there was no
>evidence at all that character traits can be
>handed down genetically or "in the blood"
>as the wizards would say.

I think my brain may have been splashed with some Goyle Polyjuice, 
because I'm not quite following you, Pippin.  So please forgive
me if 
I'm misinterpreting your meaning, but I *think* that what you
said 
above was precisely the point of my original post.

Pippin went on:
>[snip] I don't see that the heritability of
>character traits and the wrongness of racism
>and prejudice are connected. To say "all 
>---- are alike" is hurtful, regardless of
>how much diversity there happens to be
>within a particular group. 

In life, I agree.  In canon, it seems to me that it presents us with 
a logical inconsistency in the moral sense of the books:

1) A major theme in the books is that it is choice that counts, not 
abilities, nor bloodlines.

2) We are shown `evil' (Malfoys) and misguided (Fudge)
characters who 
judge others on the basis of blood purity. The `good'
characters 
don't.  This suggests that the readers are being encouraged to 
conclude `judging on the basis of bloodline is wrong.'

3) But on the other hand, we are presented with a world in 
which `character' (which I defined above as
`personality') traits 
correlate *very* strongly with bloodline.  So far, nice and nasty 
people seem to run in families; we have not – thus far – been
shown a 
world in which there are the occasional black Weasleys/Potters and 
white Malfoys (ferrets aside) [and the themes JKR is exploring come 
out in what we are shown, not in what is conceptually possible]. This 
isn't just a background quirk, it is *institutionalised* and 
perpetuated by the `good guys' by means of the house system.  

4) Therefore, there *are* certain judgements that can be – and
are – 
made in this world about someone on the basis of bloodline.  This 
contradicts point (2).

5) Unless JKR is really saying that it doesn't matter how much of 
your blood is wizard blood, but that `good' or `bad'
blood can run in 
wizards and Muggles alike?  But the concept of good or bad blood 
seems to contradict point (1).


I'm not sure that showing that some*one* can transcend bloodline
(eg 
Redeemed!Draco) would resolve this.  Perhaps showing that, for 
example, Slytherins are not *generally* evil after all (or that their 
evil is due to other factors than inherited blood) might do so.

I can't remember who mentioned Crouch?  Interesting contrast
there 
between Crouch Snr and Crouch Jnr.  Assuming that they were in the 
same house, they probably had similar `personalities', but
*did* make 
different choices.  But even with one choosing the light and the 
other choosing the dark, perhaps they were not all that dissimilar in 
the end, given Crouch Snr's ruthlessness.

Aah, shades of grey are so much more interesting!


Incidentally, has anyone else wondered what happens to ambitious 
Muggle-born wizards?  Would Slytherin reject them as not having 
sufficient purity?  Or is `personality' more important?


Pippin again:
> Harry really doesn't know much about the people in
> the other Houses. If he got to know them better,
> mightn't we find that in truth Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws,
> and even Slytherins are quite as diverse as the
> Gryffindors? 

Here's hoping! :-)

Chthonia (who will one day learn to write a short post and get to bed 
on time)