On The sorting-hat-chats Hogwarts Houses Theory and Moral Themes In Narratives

 

Recently, I decided to revisit some of my old Internet-surfing days and browse through the various online fan communities floating around on the web. While doing so, I found a curious theory of human categorization devised by members of the Harry Potter fandom. Hosted by the user “sorting-hat-chats” on the blogging platforms Tumblr and Wordpress, the system takes the four Hogwarts houses and uses them to roughly categorize the moral motivations and methods of humanity. being interested in topics related to psychology, feeling a pleasant nostalgia towards the concept of a fandom taking canonical information and using it for new purposes, and interested in the system’s potential as a character and plot theme development tool, I have decided to describe the system and discuss my thoughts on it below. 

 

            In this fan-created system, the term “Primary” is used to refer to a character’s moral values and motivational drive; the four Primaries are dichotomously arranged along two axes, with Gryffindor and Ravenclaw being Idealist Primaries and Hufflepuff and Slytherin being Loyalist Primaries respectively. As Idealist Primaries, Gryffindor and Ravenclaw are both motivated by a set of abstract moral “truths” or principles; however, they differ in how they source and decide on those principles. Gryffindor Primaries trust their moral intuition and innate sense of right and wrong, believing that the morally correct choice is one that aligns with one’s instinctive reactions to moral situations; by contrast, Ravenclaw Primaries question their moral impulses and instead rely upon rationally constructed systems (e.g. religion, logical reasoning) by which to base moral decisions off of. On the other axis, Loyalist Primaries are driven by their moral responsibilities towards the concrete wellbeing of other people; they differ in how they decide which people they should prioritize morally in terms of responsibility. Hufflepuff Primaries feel morally responsible for all people; they see everyone as having a universally equal moral value, and prioritize loyalty to communities and social groups over loyalty to specific individuals. (Note that Hufflepuff Primaries can still have motivations that are considered immoral or evil and harm innocent people. They would simply need to dehumanize their victims - in other words, stop seeing them as people and therefore strip them of their value.)  On the other side of the Loyalist dichotomy is the Slytherin Primary; people with this Primary only feel morally responsible for the individuals that they personally care about, and see these people as being more morally valuable than others.  All four Primaries can be “Burned,” meaning that one has decided that their moral motivations, while morally correct, are not feasible or practical to uphold in reality. Individuals with Burned Primaries are often jaded and cynical, seeing themselves and the world as morally bad as they are not allowed to act on what they believe is right. One can also have a “Model” in addition to the Primary, feeling motivated by some of that Primary’s beliefs and ideals without truly believing that they are intrinsically morally correct.

 

            The second component of this theory, the “Secondary,” refers to the preferred methods one uses to achieve their goals. Each Secondary takes the behavioral traits Rowling assigned to each original Hogwarts house and expands on them; for example, Ravenclaw Secondaries prefer to collect knowledge and skills in various topics and areas in order to prepare themselves for potential situations they may encounter, and Hufflepuff Secondaries prefer to work steadily and consistently towards their goals as well as build a good reputation so that others may easily come to their aid when needed.  Like the aforementioned Primaries, Secondaries can also Burn, and one can model another Secondary that is not their own.

           

            Now that I have described sorting-hat-chats’ theory and its major components above, I can now discuss my thoughts on the theory, in particular its potential as a useful tool for plot theme and character development. After learning about this theory, I have observed the majority of narratives in popular culture seem to be driven by either Hufflepuff or Gryffindor Primary ideals; this makes sense from a socio-cultural perspective, as the Hufflepuff Primary moral code prioritizes the community above individual ties and therefore is more likely to support the common goals of society, while the Gryffindor Primary, when its internal moral standards are aligned with the ethos of one’s society, can promote zealotry and unwavering support of societal moral standards while discouraging excessive questioning and therefore potential rebellion against those ideals. My most recent writing project is a deconstruction of the popular Chosen One narrative and seeks to explore how the Hufflepuff/Gryffindor morality described above, when taken to extremes, is ultimately harmful to society. I now realize that I have unintentionally created an ensemble of Chosen One protagonists that are all either Ravenclaw Primaries that question societal moral standards, Slytherin Primaries, Burned Hufflepuff Primaries, or Gryffindor Primaries whose internal moral compasses do not align with that of society’s in one way or another. By having these characters go against the very system they were chosen to serve, I am able to create interesting conflict within the plot and ultimately convey my story’s theme in a thought-provoking and effective way; sorting-hat-chats’ theory helped me to evaluate these characters and sort through their moral motivations, ensuring that they supported the themes that I wanted to establish. As morality is fundamental to human connections and society, we must be careful about the way that we portray moral themes in the stories that we tell; the Harry Potter fandom’s re-interpretation of Rowling’s original Hogwarts houses creates a potentially useful benchmark by which to evaluate the moral ethea of our characters and ultimately of our narratives.

- Jade Li