The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191503

Dear Pippin

I am confused by your post. But OK.

Pippin:
> "No one is arguing that wizarding society isn't stratified -- but Hogwarts under Dumbledore was arguably less stratified than the rest of it. Nowhere else do we see half-Giants, House Elves or Centaurs treated as equals."

Otto:
Ok, but rest of what? I hardly think the single half giant- Hagrid is treated as an equal and I don't see any house elves in wizarding robes, teaching classes or taking them.

Pippin:
> "What the inter-House rivalry makes possible is a leveling of boundaries inside the Houses that would otherwise exist because they are part of the WW as a whole. Now this, might not be any justification for the House System, but it is a tool that Dumbledore can use all the same."

Otto:
I ask "How by any stretch of the imagination does division with the elite imply levelling? And a tool that Dumbledore can use for what? For what purpose? Remember that Dumbledore make dispensations for Elves only in a few cases, specifically Dobby and Rowling gives us through the Hermione a window into a class of people who in fact, pleasure and pride in their slavery? They consider and accept their subordination and subjugation as part of -- well-- their "mythology" as others term it.

Pippin:
> "It's interesting -- Hogwarts as Harry first experiences it is far more egalitarian than the world as he knew it on Privet Drive. It's only slowly that Harry becomes aware that he is in fact living in a bubble of privilege, and that there are whole classes of Beings in the Wizarding World who have less freedom and fewer rights than Harry did in Little Whinging.

Otto:
I respond. MoOre, there are huge discrepancies of wealth between he and even his close friends the Weasleys, and there are divisions of blood as well AND even apparently the question of nationalism is brought in through the example of Fleur and dealing with other wizarding schools. But then, is that not the normal way of humans? Do we not when very young assume that the world is as we see it everywhere?

Pippin:
> "The Dursleys at their worst would not have dared to treat Harry the way Sirius treated Kreacher."

Otto:
My response- This is a shocking statement on your part considering what you say later. I will pick it up later.

Pippin:
> "Quite aside from the dubious benefits of applying the factory model to education, you are addressing the issue as if the students are the employees and the product is magic. But the students are not employed by the school. They are treated as raw material,  and the product is trained wizards. "

Otto:
I respond- You miss the point, and you apply the paradigm in a way that I did not. I was simply giving an example of the imbecility of the use of such competition within an organization which already has enough problems. It is as stupid in business as it was in Hogwarts. Human beings have enough centripital tendencies without adding to them. and the mission and product of the organization is quite immaterial in this case. Whatever the mission it can only be negatively impacted by employing division. Any large bureaucratic human organization will have enough factors leading to disharmony and disorganization sui generis without adding to them. Therefore your response really does not apply.

Pippin:
> "So as long as there is a demand for more than one kind of wizard, more than one kind will be produced. And as long as the wizarding world insists on keeping others in their place against their will, it will need enforcers who are not too dainty in their methods, and other enforcers to keep those enforcers in line. "

Otto:
My response. This is a particularly startling and troublesome statement. I was not aware that different kinds of wizards were produced? While certainly wizards may specialize in different vocational specialties. (I suppose Percy was very good at filling out things in triplicate-- magically of course-- and he had the best filing system, I was not aware there was a difference between them. But the statement you make "As long as the wizarding world insists on keeping others in their place against their will, it will need enforcers who are not too dainty in their methods, and other enforcers to keep those enforces in line."  I do not see this in Rowling, and while I understand the basic assumptions of the voluntary subordination of the magical races (giants, goblins, elves etc) may not be as the Wizards see it, I was not aware of any great and heavy-handed oppression, except perhaps the Dementors in Azkaban-- but then one can't be too careful with maximum security prisoners. On the whole even when it came to these races the Wizarding world seemed rather benign - except for Slytherin of course, who seemed to have all the House elves. And who else is being kept in line? Muggles? I don't really see that. At least not to the degree you do.

Pippin:
> "If the bullies and their antagonists are not trained at Hogwarts, they'll be trained elsewhere, IOW, because the WW can't exist in its present form without them. "

Otto:
I respond. I do not understand the abbreviation IOW but I do not see why the Wizarding World cannot exist without them. More-- you are making a startling point here. You are alleging that Hogwarts exists to train bullies as well? Let us pause here for a moment!  Is not the job of ANY educational establishment in the Western idea to transcend the mundane and to aim at a higher purpose than mere morally indifferent vocational training?  Is this not true for any Muggle Institution as well as a Magical one? Does not ANY university or school exists to make better people and avail them of a higher vision and a superior attainment-- a higher idea and ideal than the mere mundane? In short is it not a basic assumption that a person will be better once he has come out of an institution than when he went in? This has been the ideal in the West and those universities throughout the world that have imported the Western idea of education. If it is as you said, then I wonder if it's all worth it.

Pippin:
> "Dumbledore, as I see it, inherited this system and tried to subvert it towards his goals of  protecting of the innocent and extending more rights to the underclasses. He was arguably more successful in persuading the Griffyndors, who already saw themselves as protectors, but he succeeded with  those of the Slytherins who realized that they too had innocents they needed to protect. "

Otto:
My response-- I will not debate this point simply because my reading has not been extensive enough to speak authoritatively on it.

Pippin:
> "(as honored dead from Slytherin) Severus Snape."

Otto:
Severus does not die in the battle, but is killed by Voldemort's snake. Admittedly he was Dumbledore's spy, but his loyalty is always questionable as to motive. Besides  he has nothing to do with the question which is the source of this present discussion between you and I, which is-- the mass treachery of Slytherin at the moment of decision at the Battle of Hogwarts. Snape did not, indeed could not stand up and lead his house to side with the others because he had to seem to be Voldemort's man. His treachery to Voldemort would, therefore, be revealed. But at the same time, it is to be noted that NO house leader urged their charges to fight. However, we are not discussing the leaders we are discussing the spontaneous decision by the individual members of the houses- the students, and in that Rowling is clear. Not one, where there were many of the other three who did fight. Severus Snape deserves honor for his long years of espionage and betrayal of the enemy, but it is really immaterial to the point at hand. That is, Slytherins to a man were treasonous.

Pippin:
> Regulus Black.

Otto:
Regulus Black does not die at the Battle of Hogwarts does he? Does he not die in an earlier book when stealing one of the Horcruxes? So again, while an honorable person who fights against Voldemort, his death is immaterial to the immediate question-- that not one Slytherin was found at that table.

Pippin:
> Albus Severus, of course. And "Fight! Fight! Fight for my master, defender of House Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus!"

Otto:
Wonderful for Kreacher, but-- he's dead long before is he not? And how can you compare this with your statement of before on how the house elves were treated? There is a condtradiction here.

Pippin:
> You're free to see the Slytherins as little better than Orcs in human form, but I don't recall any Hobbits calling their children Shagrat  or doing battle in his name.

Otto:
Then you obviously have not read Lord of the Rings. Hobbits figure prominently in many of the final battles, AND in the scourging of the shire at the end of the book. Once again, while not the doughtiest fighters in the world of Middle Earth, their loyalty to the forces of Good and their antipathy to Sauron was never in doubt. That is why Gandalf chooses the ring bearer from among their number-- they are, he feels, of all the creatures in Middle Earth, the LEAST likely to be subverted by the allure of the ring.

He is of course mistaken and at the last moment Frodo himself succumbs and the ring is destroyed only by an accident, but Frodo brought it all that way in what is perhaps the longest Via Dolorosa in literature-- while Boromir, the epitome of the best man alive, makes a play for it practically before they're out of the front yard.

Sorry, from the very first we see the virtues of the houses as Gryffindor- Courage:  Hufflepuff- Patience and hard work; Ravenclaw- Knowledge-- And Slytherin- "Me, me me."

Otto