HP & Houses (with a dose of prejudice)
I've just realised that while I have my ideas scattered across several replies, I've never assembled them into one area. So I'm going to do it here, for personal convenience: my unified theory of Sorting.
Everything begins with the four Founders, back in the 900s. They were composed of two pairs of devoted friends -- Gryffindor/Slytherin and Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw (pairings which, despite everything, seems to have continued down to modern-day Hogwarts) -- who decided to create a school for young wizards.
Even then, there were too many students to deal with in one body. Each Founder selected a group of students and took responsibility for their tutelage, choosing them by how well the students' qualities reflected their own values. Gryffindor prized the brave, Slytherin the ambitious, Ravenclaw the clever, and Hufflepuff the diligent.
So far, so good. The problem was never how to divide up those students already gathered, but rather, who should be excluded. They fought over discrimination, not preference. Gryffindor believed that only those who had achieved some glory should be allowed in -- Ravenclaw only wanted the clever ones, and Slytherin the purebloods. Helga thought anybody should be allowed. Apparently all four quarrelled over the question, both friendships breaking up, until Slytherin left. The fighting stopped but the others were apparently quite depressed at losing him, heaven knows why.
Before this point, however, the Founders had puzzled over the question of how to keep on Sorting once they had died, and Godric came up with the idea of enchanting his hat. They channelled some part of themselves, or at least their values, into the hat, and voilà, Sorting Hat.
It's important, I think, that the Hat isn't judging the students' barely-formed eleven-year-old personalities. The Houses were never a reflection of personality. As with the original Founders, it's all about values -- what each child considers important. Hermione is at least as ruthless as any Slytherin, but she doesn't actually value the quality. What does she want to be seen as? Easy -- intelligent and brave. In the early books, she's rather ambivalent over which she prefers, but her choice of Gryffindor ultimately causes her to become more Gryffindorlike (the great irony of the Houses, IMO). But she already 'knew' that Gryffindor was best by her Sorting, and went in with her mind set. If she hadn't come across the tidbit, she might very well have been in Ravenclaw -- where, for all we know, she might have been happier.
This would explain, easily, why the Hat will ultimately allow students with ambivalent values to make a conscious decision, and why kids from the same family usually end up in the same house. Of course they do -- they've been brought up with the same values, except in the infrequent cases of children who reject those values and with them the traditional family House, like Sirius. Likewise the conscious choice of a House is, in effect, an expression of the child's values. The House is associated with certain values and the child, by choosing those associations, is saying 'that's what I want -- that's what's I want to be.'
However, those House associations aren't just Sorting criteria; they're closely linked to each House's special way of discriminating against others, or of failing to do so, going all the way back to the Founders in the 900s. Purity of blood, intelligence, the pursuit of glory, and acceptance are quite rightfully associated with what, for lack of a better word, might be called 'House culture.' You don't have to be pureblooded to get into Slytherin, but Slytherin halfbloods and Muggleborns learn to keep quiet about the nonmagical side of the family. It's the same with the Gryffindor thirst for admiration; it might not be demanded (see Neville Longbottom), but it's nearly universal nonetheless. Those who don't start with it are pretty likely to acquire it over time, though naturally in different ways.
Incidentally, I also doubt that most of the students get the choice Harry did. Harry, at eleven, certainly valued bravery, but ambition, the determination to win, no matter what the cost, is present in equal degree, especially then. He didn't reject his actual Slytherin qualities and values (and he has plenty of them), but simply the idea of Slytherin as The House of Nasty People. Thus he was fundamentally ambivalent when he stuck the Hat on his head. Even Hermione wasn't noticably long in getting Sorted, and she didn't make the choice herself -- it ultimately decided on Gryffindor, not Hermione. Neville and Seamus did take awhile; I don't really see Neville dictating anything to the Hat.
Ron and Ginny, I suspect, were like Draco -- Sorted the instant the Hat touched their hair.
In a perfect world, no single House, or value, would have the moral high ground; it would be like trying to decide whether it's worse to lose your heart or your brain (ie you're screwed either way). The trouble, of course, is that courage is the paramount virtue in Potterverse, and since courage is the defining qualities of Gryffindors, it somehow raises them up above other people, and adds some rather crazy baggage.
Especially for Severus Snape. He got in Slytherin quite legitimately and it's clear by the end that he has what it takes to do anything -- quite literally anything -- to achieve his ends. Classic Slytherin, really. (Of course, Slytherins mostly desire different ends for different reasons -- the common factor is the drive to achieve their goals, whatever those goals may be.)
When it transpires that Snape isn't going to turn tail and run from Voldemort (which would be stupid and doomed to failure, but whatever), Dumbledore is startled and pleased. Meaning it for a compliment on Snape's moral growth, DD in effect tells him that he's a decent person after all -- so good he'd probably a Gryffindor and not a stinking Slytherin. And Snape looks stricken. Well, it's kind of hard to blame him (on that occasion... there are plenty of other things to blame him for). If a Slytherin goal wasn't world domination but, just for instance, the protection of your One True Love's only child against Evil Incarnate, you'd probably do immensely brave things to achieve that goal -- if they were required. It doesn't mean that you actually value bravery itself, or that you would be brave in other circumstances, or that you'd be Sorted into the House of the brave and chivalrous if somebody stuck the Hat atop your thirty-five-year-old head.
And when Snape's little green-eyed namesake is petrified of ending up in Slytherin, Harry does not say 'You were named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin, and he was one of the best men I ever knew.' What he says is that Snape was one of the bravest men he knew -- that he was good, or at least not bad, because he was like a Gryffindor. It's no wonder he follows that up with, in effect, 'Just tell the Hat to put you in Gryffindor, okay?'
The inconsistency here, I think, is that JKR has some unclear idea that the Houses ought to be equal and balanced, hence all the OOTP talk about Hogwarts unity. But in the end she really thinks Ambition is Bad and Courage is Good (I suspect this is where the discomfort with the Lily/Merope comparison comes in) -- Loyalty, to the right people, is also a sign of Goodness (in fact it's the barometer of moral virtue), while Cleverness is neutral and dangerous, and therefore it's this great thing that at least three Houses managed to combine for the final battle. I think those of us who feel a bit ill over the pointed exclusion of Slytherins (remember the three House flags) are probably those who admire or at least don't disapprove of ambition. There's this clash -- as there often is in HP -- between the ideology of equality and the actual ideology as seen by characters' behaviour. There's at least nods in some direction with Phineas and Snape and Andromeda and Slughorn.
It probably goes back to my earlier complaint -- prejudice is only wrong in the hands of the bad guys. I don't think we're supposed to see anything wrong with Ron instilling anti-pureblood bigotry (self-hatred much?) in his little girl. His pureblood nieces and nephews (not to mention his siblings and parents) will magically know the difference between the 'good sort' and the 'bad sort.' Sounds like the Dursleys, honestly.
I'm reminded a little of Tolkien, and of how Aragorn's line would eventually become tyrants. D'you think the 'good guys' will ever come up with the reverse version of The Taboo? Catch and hunt down anyone who ever says 'Mudblood'? I can see DH!Ron as totally in favour of that. *shiver* And I'd almost started to like him, too.
Everything begins with the four Founders, back in the 900s. They were composed of two pairs of devoted friends -- Gryffindor/Slytherin and Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw (pairings which, despite everything, seems to have continued down to modern-day Hogwarts) -- who decided to create a school for young wizards.
Even then, there were too many students to deal with in one body. Each Founder selected a group of students and took responsibility for their tutelage, choosing them by how well the students' qualities reflected their own values. Gryffindor prized the brave, Slytherin the ambitious, Ravenclaw the clever, and Hufflepuff the diligent.
So far, so good. The problem was never how to divide up those students already gathered, but rather, who should be excluded. They fought over discrimination, not preference. Gryffindor believed that only those who had achieved some glory should be allowed in -- Ravenclaw only wanted the clever ones, and Slytherin the purebloods. Helga thought anybody should be allowed. Apparently all four quarrelled over the question, both friendships breaking up, until Slytherin left. The fighting stopped but the others were apparently quite depressed at losing him, heaven knows why.
Before this point, however, the Founders had puzzled over the question of how to keep on Sorting once they had died, and Godric came up with the idea of enchanting his hat. They channelled some part of themselves, or at least their values, into the hat, and voilà, Sorting Hat.
It's important, I think, that the Hat isn't judging the students' barely-formed eleven-year-old personalities. The Houses were never a reflection of personality. As with the original Founders, it's all about values -- what each child considers important. Hermione is at least as ruthless as any Slytherin, but she doesn't actually value the quality. What does she want to be seen as? Easy -- intelligent and brave. In the early books, she's rather ambivalent over which she prefers, but her choice of Gryffindor ultimately causes her to become more Gryffindorlike (the great irony of the Houses, IMO). But she already 'knew' that Gryffindor was best by her Sorting, and went in with her mind set. If she hadn't come across the tidbit, she might very well have been in Ravenclaw -- where, for all we know, she might have been happier.
This would explain, easily, why the Hat will ultimately allow students with ambivalent values to make a conscious decision, and why kids from the same family usually end up in the same house. Of course they do -- they've been brought up with the same values, except in the infrequent cases of children who reject those values and with them the traditional family House, like Sirius. Likewise the conscious choice of a House is, in effect, an expression of the child's values. The House is associated with certain values and the child, by choosing those associations, is saying 'that's what I want -- that's what's I want to be.'
However, those House associations aren't just Sorting criteria; they're closely linked to each House's special way of discriminating against others, or of failing to do so, going all the way back to the Founders in the 900s. Purity of blood, intelligence, the pursuit of glory, and acceptance are quite rightfully associated with what, for lack of a better word, might be called 'House culture.' You don't have to be pureblooded to get into Slytherin, but Slytherin halfbloods and Muggleborns learn to keep quiet about the nonmagical side of the family. It's the same with the Gryffindor thirst for admiration; it might not be demanded (see Neville Longbottom), but it's nearly universal nonetheless. Those who don't start with it are pretty likely to acquire it over time, though naturally in different ways.
Incidentally, I also doubt that most of the students get the choice Harry did. Harry, at eleven, certainly valued bravery, but ambition, the determination to win, no matter what the cost, is present in equal degree, especially then. He didn't reject his actual Slytherin qualities and values (and he has plenty of them), but simply the idea of Slytherin as The House of Nasty People. Thus he was fundamentally ambivalent when he stuck the Hat on his head. Even Hermione wasn't noticably long in getting Sorted, and she didn't make the choice herself -- it ultimately decided on Gryffindor, not Hermione. Neville and Seamus did take awhile; I don't really see Neville dictating anything to the Hat.
Ron and Ginny, I suspect, were like Draco -- Sorted the instant the Hat touched their hair.
In a perfect world, no single House, or value, would have the moral high ground; it would be like trying to decide whether it's worse to lose your heart or your brain (ie you're screwed either way). The trouble, of course, is that courage is the paramount virtue in Potterverse, and since courage is the defining qualities of Gryffindors, it somehow raises them up above other people, and adds some rather crazy baggage.
Especially for Severus Snape. He got in Slytherin quite legitimately and it's clear by the end that he has what it takes to do anything -- quite literally anything -- to achieve his ends. Classic Slytherin, really. (Of course, Slytherins mostly desire different ends for different reasons -- the common factor is the drive to achieve their goals, whatever those goals may be.)
When it transpires that Snape isn't going to turn tail and run from Voldemort (which would be stupid and doomed to failure, but whatever), Dumbledore is startled and pleased. Meaning it for a compliment on Snape's moral growth, DD in effect tells him that he's a decent person after all -- so good he'd probably a Gryffindor and not a stinking Slytherin. And Snape looks stricken. Well, it's kind of hard to blame him (on that occasion... there are plenty of other things to blame him for). If a Slytherin goal wasn't world domination but, just for instance, the protection of your One True Love's only child against Evil Incarnate, you'd probably do immensely brave things to achieve that goal -- if they were required. It doesn't mean that you actually value bravery itself, or that you would be brave in other circumstances, or that you'd be Sorted into the House of the brave and chivalrous if somebody stuck the Hat atop your thirty-five-year-old head.
And when Snape's little green-eyed namesake is petrified of ending up in Slytherin, Harry does not say 'You were named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin, and he was one of the best men I ever knew.' What he says is that Snape was one of the bravest men he knew -- that he was good, or at least not bad, because he was like a Gryffindor. It's no wonder he follows that up with, in effect, 'Just tell the Hat to put you in Gryffindor, okay?'
The inconsistency here, I think, is that JKR has some unclear idea that the Houses ought to be equal and balanced, hence all the OOTP talk about Hogwarts unity. But in the end she really thinks Ambition is Bad and Courage is Good (I suspect this is where the discomfort with the Lily/Merope comparison comes in) -- Loyalty, to the right people, is also a sign of Goodness (in fact it's the barometer of moral virtue), while Cleverness is neutral and dangerous, and therefore it's this great thing that at least three Houses managed to combine for the final battle. I think those of us who feel a bit ill over the pointed exclusion of Slytherins (remember the three House flags) are probably those who admire or at least don't disapprove of ambition. There's this clash -- as there often is in HP -- between the ideology of equality and the actual ideology as seen by characters' behaviour. There's at least nods in some direction with Phineas and Snape and Andromeda and Slughorn.
It probably goes back to my earlier complaint -- prejudice is only wrong in the hands of the bad guys. I don't think we're supposed to see anything wrong with Ron instilling anti-pureblood bigotry (self-hatred much?) in his little girl. His pureblood nieces and nephews (not to mention his siblings and parents) will magically know the difference between the 'good sort' and the 'bad sort.' Sounds like the Dursleys, honestly.
I'm reminded a little of Tolkien, and of how Aragorn's line would eventually become tyrants. D'you think the 'good guys' will ever come up with the reverse version of The Taboo? Catch and hunt down anyone who ever says 'Mudblood'? I can see DH!Ron as totally in favour of that. *shiver* And I'd almost started to like him, too.