[HPforGrownups] Classist Hogwarts (was ... was .... was...)

[James P. Robinson III]

No: HPFGUIDX 45533

Hello all--

         This is my first post here.  I will try not to break too many 
rules.  Go gently with me.  My comments are interspersed below.

                                                 Jim

>At 20:10 17/10/02 +0000, swimsalone wrote:
> >I woud argue that of course a Boarding school is somewhat
> >elitist, but the presence of the Weasleys seems to indicate that
> >this elitist element is extremely unimportant (except to Ron who
> >feels quite put-upon to be poor in a school packed with
> >privileged children) in the long run.

I tend to disagree with some of the presuppositions of this statement.  Not 
that "boarding school" doesn't imply some level of elitism; it does.  But 
Ron Weasley's presence at Hogwarts, to me, reinforces that elitism rather 
than negating it.  Ron is poor, certainly, but that has no impact on his 
class.  In fact, I would argue that Ron is at Hogwarts primarily because of 
his class.  He is from an old family, is a pure-bred, is a child of 
Hogwarts alumni, speaks with a "good" accent (cf. Stan Shunpike), but seems 
to have only meager magical ability.  Would he have a place at Hogwarts 
aside from the circumstances of his birth?


>As the clock struck 03:10 AM 10/18/2002 +0100, GulPlum took pen in hand 
>and wrote:
>Before I get stuck in, let's define our terms. I get the impression that
>the word "class" has slightly different undertones on either side of the
>Atlantic. In America, it's almost exclusively about money, and to a lesser
>degree about power. Later down the line comes "breeding", or inheritance.

This "American" definition of class is very geographically delimited.  In 
much of American society, class is defined by breeding only, absolutely 
irrespective of money or power.  San Antonio, New Orleans and Philadelphia 
societies are good examples of this.  I would suggest that the main 
difference between class structures in the US and in Britain is that class 
structures (and class definitions) in the US are very local and regional 
and that class in Britain is more of a national construct.  I see class in 
the Potterverse as following the British model in that respect.

As the clock struck 03:10 AM 10/18/2002 +0100, GulPlum took pen in hand and 
wrote:
>By whichever measure of "class", Hogwarts as an institution shows no
>preference. We have the purebloods: the wealthy and aristocratic Malfoys,
>the impoverished professional Weasleys, the wealthy Potters about whose
>professional standing we know nothing at present, and the not-apparently
>wealthy Longbottoms. We have the mixed-bloods: Seamus, and Riddle from the
>Muggle orphanage. We have the Muggle-born: Hermione with her professional
>parents, the well-heeled Finch-Fletchley, and the milkman's sons the Creeveys.

I am, personally, unconvinced by this.  I believe this could just as easily 
point to a basically elitist school system with a certain number of 
scholarship cases (what would have once been called "charity boys") thrown 
in.  Ron Weasley and Neville Longbottom may be good examples of students 
given a place at Hogwarts because of their class (as in the circumstances 
of their birth) and in spite of their meager or even negligible magical 
talent.  I agree that wealth seems to play no part in selection for 
Hogwarts.  I just think wealth is irrelevant to class standing.

As the clock struck 03:10 AM 10/18/2002 +0100, GulPlum took pen in hand and 
wrote:
>Note, however, that pupils are sorted NOT by their social, familial or
>economic background, but by their own character and aptitudes. "It is not
>important where we came from, but who we are." Poor Riddle with his
>(presumably) not-well-off magical mother and grandfather is sorted into the
>same House as wealthy, aristocratic Malfoy; rich Harry joins the
>impoverished Weasleys.

But what do we really know about the sorting hat's selection criteria?

                                 Jim