A (0:01)

Welcome to Critical Magic Theory, where we deconstruct the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Because loving something doesn't mean we can't be critical of it. I'm Professor Julian Womble and today is our Prof. Response episode on Slytherin House. Now, I have to say this, I need to preface this. There were accusations, allegations that I was not as hard on Slytherin House as I have been on Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. And to that I say propaganda. And I consulted with some people who said that it wasn't any different. I think the thing that we have to recall is that we spend a considerable amount of time praising and romanticizing Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. Thus, my job is to invite us to think about things in a different way. The same is done for Slytherin, but in the inverse, because we spend a considerable amount of time thinking about Slytherin House through the negative lenses that are presented to us through the book, and many of them are warranted. I want to preface that as well, however, simultaneously, concurrently. And I had to bring a different perspective. Now, some of you just wanted to hate on Slytherin to hate on Slytherin, and that is your prerogative. But. But we have to diversify a few things. And speaking of diversity, I don't know how I'm going to make this transition. I don't know how I'm going to do it. But speaking of diversity, it's time to diversify your movement because some of you are sitting, some of you may be standing, but you need to prepare for the bop because it's coming in three, in two in one, let's bop. It's I hope you danced, y'. All. You know we have to dive right in. But before we dive right in, I just want to point out that the Gryffindor survey is up and made available on Patreon right now and will be posted periodically through the week on my social media Prof. JW on Instagram. ProfW. On TikTok. Although if you really want the survey, the link is easier to get on Instagram. I will also put it in my my link in my bios. So check it out. Fill it out. I know that many of us are expecting a slanderous experience as it pertains to Gryffindors. And I'm not going to say we won't have that. But what I will say is that if you are a Gryffindor and or a Gryffindor sympathizer, if you have a Gryffindor moon or a Gryffindor rising in your Hogwarts house chart. This is your time. This is your moment. Don't wait for the slander to come. Defend yourselves now. The best offense is a good defense. So let's go. Let's let the people know about Gryffindors, because the people have a lot to say. It's me. I'm the people. But before we get to the Lions, before we get there, we have to talk about all the things that came up for us in our conversation surrounding Slytherins, y'. All. I just. There's a lot that we have to discuss here. So in order to get you all ready, I'm gonna put in a little music so that you all can get yourselves ready. Because the first thing that we have to talk about is ambition. And you all know that this, this one is gonna be one for the ages. Because many people had many things to say about ambition and Slytherins, and it's a lot to dissect. So just listen to the music, let it loosen you up a little bit. Because yes, there are words that will be said by me. And some of them you may not like. Maybe you'll like some of them though. Okay. Okay. Okay. One of the strongest threads was people reframing ambition in the comments of the post episode chat. Not as inherently evil, but as something neutral or even admirable. Folks also pulled examples from other houses showing how ambition is everywhere, but only gets vilified when it's Slytherin shaped. And the thing is, is that some of us made some really good points about why it is that it somehow looks different for Slytherins. But I think that some of the presumptions that come along with the these really astute observations are also still informed by the biases. And I also think that one of the hardest parts of analyzing this particular house is that there's no diversity, right? Like the best we get of a non Death Eater Slytherin person is Horus Slughorn. And I'm sorry to say, for all of our Slughorn sympathizers, it's not giving that far of a distance from anything. It's not taking us over to the good side. If anything, it's making us scratch our head and say, are these people really good people? And many of us are saying right now, no. And I think that that's fair, right? I think that there is a way in which we are literally conditioned by these books to see Slytherin a certain way. And thus we aren't given a lot of tools to humanize them. We aren't given a lot of tools to do what we've been doing for other houses in terms of romanticizing them. And so in that way, I think it's easy for us to look at the notion of ambition through the Slytherin lens and say bad. Right? But some of you brought up some really interesting points that I want us to tap into. So I pulled a lot of quotes for this particular thread because many people had a lot of really interesting things to say and I'm going to try to put them into conversation with one another. So Farah said, the reason why I can never be or the reason why I can never imagine myself being in Slytherin is because of now. I know that it might be a wild claim and would love to be corrected. Those are parentheticals because of the potential sacrifice of values for ambition. Like in order to reach to the top, I am gonna have to accept immoral things to happen around me in a corrupt system that I desire to be at the top of. Ambition can come in the way of morality and when it does, is it called ambition or selfishness? Then would an ambitious person give up a place where they worked so hard to reach in the name of morality? Or would that person turn a blind eye to not lose? And that is my problem with Slytherin House, I think. Okay, before. Okay, okay, okay. I'm trying to figure out how I want to do this. Anyways, we're just going to keep going with some of the quotes Amelia wrote. Ambition is neutral. It can be a good or a bad thing. That depends on your own moral compass. Okay. Morality is back and intentions. One of the more common and negative views of ambition is to associate it with greed or seeking for glory for personal gain. However, in my opinion, those who view ambition as a bad thing want others to fall in line and not stand out. They want to shine in the spotlight themselves or not celebrate others successes. Ooh. Oh. Nadia wrote, Ron refers to Percy as very ambitious and as a stated Slytherin trait, he clearly sees this as something not to be trusted. Whereas Fred and George are strategic, which is a more subtle take on the Slytherin vibe. I think Ron would not have caught on. I think Molly, thinking of the joke shop was doomed from doomed to failure during the wartime would have influenced his thinking away from their goal being one of ambition to a way to do something they loved and success being an added bonus. Fred and George could definitely be slither claws, though they aren't really all that chivalrous. They are brave though. Kind of a mixed bag really. Eleanor wrote, I was really interested in your thoughts about Fred and George and their ambition. What it got me thinking about though was whether it's really ambition that we're defining Slytherins by so much more than being power hungry, specifically ambitious for personal power. And that's why we accept the likes of Percy, but not Fred and George, who yes, want to be successful but don't want to be powerful. Okay, everyone stick a pin in that particular thing. Okay, we're going to hold on to that one. As we continue to read Earl earliest T wrote there are so many positive, driven, motivated, committed, determined, purposeful, striving, aspiring and negative, pushy, impatient, aggressive, desirous, goal hungry. Words related to ambitious. But to me it means hey, there's something that I want, I'm going towards that and is that so bad for me? Why is it wrong to have wants, needs, goals and personal aspirations? Maybe other Houses members don't need to want things as many or as direly as Slytherins do. But surely we are not the only ones who fight for what we want. We are not wrong for wanting itself. Though some Slytherins do tumble off the cliff, down the slippery slope and into the swallowing vortex of ruthless tunnel vision to towards their ambition. That tunnel vision is for me at least a double edged sword. To be able to cut through everything in your life to get to your goal is both amazing and scary. Sometimes you can be right to use the ability, but other times you only hurt others and even yourself to wield the sword without strong caution. And Caitlin wrote, ambition does not mean that you are the top of X or the best of Y or the absolute of Z. I see a lot of people attributing ambition to absolutes and that is not what it is. That is not what that is at all. Ambition is a strong desire to do or achieve something with determination and hard work. Not an end all, be all. It is a state of being, a mindset one has to propel success. And success is subjective, not linear. Y' all really brought so many things to bear. And as I was reading through this and thinking about how we understand the idea of ambition, I think that there is a way that we understand ambition through a very specific lens because we only again, even in our own world, in our own lives, think of people who are ambitious through a very specific lens, which is you're doing it at the expense of someone else. Right? That the notion of getting ahead means that you have to get ahead and someone else has to fall, right? Like, it's viewed as this kind of zero sum game. But we also know the notion of lifting as we climb, which is to say that you help other people get to where they want to go. We also know that there are people whose ambitions have nothing to do with anyone else. And I think what else is interesting here, and it's a point that Farrah brought up, right? Which is the corrupt system in which these ambitions are operating. And it seems interesting to me that we would blame an individual for wanting to get ahead in this kind of system and not blame the system for being corrupt. Because, yes, of course, like, if you want to get ahead in a capitalist society, there are certain things that you're going to have to do and certain people who are not going to be the beneficiaries of the same thing that you might benefit from if you cut them off at the knees or do whatever is necessary, right? But we also know that there are jobs that really do foster that kind of mentality. It's so funny. When I was writing my book, one of the questions that I got when I was doing like a job interview or something was, okay, so the book sounds interesting, but which scholar are you cutting off at the knees in order to prove your point? And it was such an interesting thing for me because I had never thought about my work that way. I was writing my book for the sake of writing it. And I had a point that I wanted to make, and not really doing it at the expense of someone else, but in the minds of other scholars. They're like, yeah, but in order for us to understand your contribution, you have to put down someone else's work. You have to explain why that work is bad or insufficient for the thing that you're trying to explain, and depending on how ambitious I am, in some ways determines how hard I'm going to go against those other books, those other articles, those other scholars. And I think it's fascinating because in many ways, if I don't do that, then I'm not meeting expectations, which means I'm not going to be able to reach the goals, right? Like, if I want to get tenure, I need my book to be perceived a certain way, and I need people to recognize its contribution. But I'm being told by other people who have already reached the rank that I'm trying to get to that the way to do that is by telling off other authors and calling out the problems that they have now. Are there ways to do that that are not necessarily antagonistic? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, no matter how nice you say it, I'm still being called upon to defame and problematize someone else's work. And that work isn't necessarily bad, they're not necessarily wrong. But I have to go in and say, here's why you didn't do the thing that you said you did. I have to go in and say, this was incorrect in order for my work to be seen as legitimate and worthy of the reward that I'm shooting for, which is tenure. Now, is that my fault? Like, am I to blame for having to do that when the expectations of me are set not by me, but by the powers that be? BARS and I think that this is a really interesting thing about ambition. Because if we take that example, what's the alternative? That I don't do that, which then means that my book might not be seen the way that I need it to be seen in order to get what I need to get right, which is tenure. Now you could say, well, maybe that's not the job you should have, but it is the job that I have. And so would you have me go and get another job that might not require me to do the same thing or have the same level of, like, intellectual rigor in order to be able to. To be seen as more moral? Like, I think that the invocation of the system is really important here because when we think about ambition in certain spaces, I think we also have to think about why people have. Why people's ambitions manifest the way that they do. Now there are some people, your Lucius Malfoys, your Draco's, who don't care. And they would sooner cut you off no matter what the circumstance is. But there is also a space in which. And you know how I feel about Percy, but what we also know is that he is the only person who we actively see leave Hogwarts and go into the Ministry. And so he's the only one that we really get to get a sense of what it looks like to have to be successful. And is it Percy's fault? Part of the answer is yes, but I think part of the answer is also no. That he went to the Ministry during a time where everyone was anti Harry and anti Dumbledore. And his goal might not have even been to be powerful, but rather just to be employed. And like, yes, Arthur had a job, but Arthur also had been there for a long time. You know what they say, Last to hire, first to fire. And so the idea of how we understand the choices that Percy made. And yes, I'm going to grant you, he made some bad choices. He made some decisions that I don't agree with. But at the end of the day, he made these decisions because he's operating in a specific kind of system. Fred and George don't have the same kinds of constraints because they're not operating in that system, right? Like they're not operating in the Ministry of Magic system. They may be operating in the larger magical world system, but they have completely divorced themselves of the kind of structure of the government that many people have to go into. Like, can you think about so many of the people who work in the Wize and Gamma who work on all of these things, especially in Order, the Phoenix who are sitting there knowing that Harry Potter probably didn't do anything, but don't want to raise too much of a stink because they don't want to lose their jobs because Cornelius Fudge is on a rampage. Like, sometimes people's ambitions are not necessarily the byproduct of just their own decisions. Sometimes, like, there are other things at work. There are externalities at work. And I think the invocation of the system is a really, really, really important one because I think when we look at some of what other people said, if we look at what Earl says, when we look at what even like what Eleanor offers us, right, the notion of like seeking power and being power hungry, I think that there's a way that some of that is, yes, there are people who want to be powerful, but I also think that there's a way in which sometimes people don't want to. Don't want to be powerful. It just comes off that way because they want us keep their job. We are currently in a moment where, like, people are having to make all kinds of concessions to stay employed. Is that ambitious or is that necessary? And how do we make the distinction? Like, is being ambitious being basically saying, like, you could stay in this one place, you could do this one thing and you don't need to go any further. Is it Arthur Weasley? Right? Like, Arthur doesn't necessarily need to go or do anything. He has his job. He doesn't need to aspire to anything else. And he doesn't. Like, he is not ambitious, but his family also pays a price for that. And he's not, not problematic. Like, he still has his biases and his prejudices. He's just not necessarily, like, trying to leverage those in order to get ahead. And he still works for the Ministry of Magic though, which is problematic af and so I'm really interested in this notion of ambition because I do think that we tend to see the idea of ambition as being very problematic. But I do think, as Eleanor offers us, that there is a difference. People who simply want to be powerful and are willing to do whatever to get that and people who simply want to be successful and are in a structure where in order to be successful there are things that might not be as palatable to us that one has to do. And again, I think that we have to be able to kind of hold space for that particular reality because I do think that that Mila introduces a really interesting point about ambition and its neutrality and that there is a way in which like one can simply want something. And that's not bad, right? And then Caitlin offers us the definition, a strong desire to achieve something with determination and hard work. I think that what we often see though is that sometimes that hard work and those types of things come at the extent expense of someone else. And I think we have to ask ourselves in those situations, is that by design or is that by desire? Right. Does the structure require someone to do that or is that just something that someone wants to do? And in truth, those two things are not mutually exclusive. But I think that when we think about ambition, I think we have to consider the externalities that inform how people's ambition operates. Another thing that came up a lot in the post episode chat was Slytherins as loyal, protective and deeply community oriented. Not lone wolves, but people who fiercely defend their pack. That loyalty sometimes looks a lot like Hufflepuffs, just maybe a little bit sharper. And I think that this is another thing that might undermine the way that we understand ambition as it pertains to Slytherins. Because we are talking about people who do care about the people they care about, right? And so that they're not necessarily as willing to forsake the people that they care about for the sake of their own power and ambition. Right? And when push comes to shove, we see most of the individuals who are in Slytherins making a lot of concessions in their ambition. Like again, I always come back to this because I think it's one of the most stark examples of this. Like Bellatrix actively went to Spinner's end with Narcissa, knowing what Narcissa was up to, tried to convince her not to, but then also became the binder of the Unbreakable Vow. And so we're talking about someone who is outlandishly ambitious. We know that Bellatrix wants to be like the right hand person for Voldemort like she would do anything to unseat Severus. And yet, and still, and maybe that was part of her plan with this, but she still was there. She could have completely exposed Severus and Narcissa for their plot to undermine Voldemort and she didn't. And so her ambition is not without consideration of other people. And particularly as it pertains to family, I think it's really, really, really prevalent. Particularly when we look at the Slytherins that we meet. Charlie writes, I don't think Slytherins are lone wolves. On the contrary, I think they are similar to Hufflepuffs and that they are fiercely loyal. They are the embodiment of I will burn the world down for you and are very protective of their loved ones. See, Narcissa, they just might not extend that sentiment to anyone outside their inner circle. Right. I think there's a level of selectivity and exclusivity that Slytherins operate with when it comes to who they are loyal to. Magdalene wrote, I do love the special Slytherin Hufflepuff relationship and I think the answers here express it plainly. I think they align on their value of loyalty and I think they see each other's skill sets as unique and valuable, yet they know they couldn't do what the other does. I think that that's why they work. They are also both community oriented, so it makes sense that they understand the notion of being who you're good at being. And that doesn't mean you don't find value in the attributes outside of your own. And I think that, that, I think that that dynamic is a really, really important one. Julia R. Wright I almost said my own name. Good Lord. In Hermione, particularly a fic like Secrets and Masks, it's the community and the friend group that the Slytherins have that changes the way Hermione looks at the house. Every single fic takes the story of Draco, Blaze, Theo, Astoria, Pansy or whomever and turns them into a found family that goes beyond Harry, Ron and Hermione. The way the fandom sees friendship among Slytherins is so important because it truly shows how the ambition and resourcefulness can be used to protect loved ones. Hello, Bella. Keeping secrets from Voldy only for her sister. You see, it all comes back to this idea that, yes, I think that there is a very clear understanding of the ambition that Slytherins have, but I also do think that there is something to be said about when and how we see them use it and who the beneficiaries and the people who don't benefit from it are. Right. And I. I think that the reason why Slytherins are so specific is because. Well, I think part of it is they operate in this space of exclusivity and they just don't want a lot of people in. Right. There's a very strong you can't sit with us vibe. And I embody that when I said that all the Dramione girlies who think Slytherin is cool that you can't sit with us. And I still stand by that. But I do think that there is also a way that. And part of my motivation for that was that when you are dealing with, like, people who simply can't understand, like, what it is to be in the position that you're in for one reason or another, like, yeah, you're very selective, but you also have to be very protective. I also think that for so many of these Slytherins, like, they isolate themselves because they're bigots and because they're elitist. And so when we think about Bellatrix, like, all she really has at this point is her sister, because. And that's Narcissa, because Andromeda's run off, Sirius is gone and then dies. And so she doesn't have a lot of people in her orbit. And again, when you're talking about people who are pack people, you want to keep the pack. And I think this is the same thing for Narcissa. Right. And obviously there's a familial bond there, but I also think that there's a way that even, like, Draco is running around with, like, Crabbe and Goyle at the end of the book, like, they're still with him. And. And what's more is that, like, Crabbe and Goyle aren't really even that loyal to him anymore. Crabbe and Goyle aren't loyal. Ha ha, ha ha. Clever. Clever. But I think that there is a way that there is still just kind of, like, default understanding of what it means to be a Slytherin. And I think some of that comes from a recognition that, like, no one else wants to be friends with you. Some of it also comes from the fact that you don't want to be friends with anyone else and so that you find your community and you hold onto it and you keep it. And I think that that's one of the big differences between Hufflepuffs and Slytherins is that Hufflepuffs don't have that kind of exclusivity. I think that they are willing to allow, you know, people into their orbit not without, you know, judgment or not without, like, you know, they have the capacity to be messy. We talked about that, but I don't think it's the same kind. The motivation behind it is not the same as it is for Slytherins. And I think that that's a really important reality to consider. And so that when we think about, you know, the loyalty and the protectiveness, I think some of this comes from a very kind of old school pure blood idea as well, of, like, there aren't a lot of us left and there are a lot of people running around here, you know, perpetrating magic. They don't deserve to be here. I'm not saying I agree with this mentality, but I think it is the mentality of a lot of Slytherins who are like, yeah, like, even when we meet Draco, he's talking about the fact that, like, oh, they're letting in riff raff, right? And so the idea of protecting what it means to be magical is really important. And we talked about this in the most recent virtual hangout that I had with the chronic overthinkers this past Saturday. And we talked a lot about the idea of the mentality of supremacists as always being victims. And that there is a way in which a victimhood mindset that also cultivates a sense of community, because who else can understand your victimhood? And I think that there's something to be said about the way that Slytherins see themselves, particularly the Slytherins that we meet, who are the children of pure blood supremacists who have undoubtedly been pouring into them all kinds of propaganda about Muggles and Muggle born people and even half bloods. And so that part of this PAC mentality and this loyalty is not only just a loyalty to the people, but a loyalty to what the people represent. And I think it's in that latter piece that we find the more problematic aspects of Slytherin. Right? Because the desire here is to maintain pure blood supremacist ideology. And the best way to do that is to keep it tight and not to expose yourself too much to other people's like, thought processes. Because if you do, you might think something different, God forbid. And that resonates with me on a number of dimensions for the world and the time that we're living in right now, right, where it's so easy to silo yourself. But what's more in that regard is that, you know, other. Every house does that, right? All of the common rooms are secret. Everyone has their own secret thing going on. They were founded with the idea of like secrecy being a thing. And so it stands to reason in a lot of ways where it's like. So, yeah, like Slytherins are not the only ones who have this pack mentality. We see it for all the houses. But I think that there's something very specific to the way that they do it because it's steeped in supremacist ideology and the desire to keep that ideology alive. Several of you zoomed in on the Malfoys not just as villains but as an example of how complicated self interest and altruism can be. Their philanthropy, their family loyalty, even Narcissus lie in the forest. All of it raises the question when is an act actually altruistic and when is it just self serving? And I think that this is a really interesting thing for us to think about as it pertains to Slytherins because again, when we think about the idea of ambition, all roads lead back to ambition. When we get, when we think about it and some of what many of us have brought up, right, there is a kind of inherent individualized understanding of like the desire to get power. There is an, you know, when we think about people who are, we would consider power hungry, it's like, yeah, for you, like, you're not doing this to empower other people. And I made a comment in the Slytherin episode last week about the kind of philanthropic endeavors of the Malfoys and I said that it could be, I said it was, it could be, it's altruistic. And many people kind of jumped on that and they're like, don't stop, like don't talk that madness. And I just, what I meant to say was it could be construed as altruistic but also like, I think that there's a way in which, like it still is, even if it is self serving. Like people still benefit from it or whatever cause still benefit from what's being done. And so again, like some of us, because some of us are very driven by intention, right? And we want to say, well, the intention wasn't the right thing, but if the outcome is still good, is it bad? And that matters because once we get through Gryffindor and we get through Severus Snape, we have to talk about Albus Dumbledore. And then in a lot of ways this is not an episode about Dumbledore. You're not tricking me, not tricking me. So like, don't even Try it. But there are a lot of ways in which many of us will see what he did and does and say, yeah, like, the actions and the choices that were made were bad and some of them were what, self serving. But the outcome was good and necessary. And so when we, I want us to, like, think about that as it, as it pertains to some of what people had to say about the Malfoys. Amy wrote, ultimately, the Malfoys philanthropy really underscores what was said about Narcissa lying to Voldemort in the forest. We tend to think about self interest and community interest as being kind of orthogonal from one another or mutually exclusive, but they're not. I agree with this completely, but I disagree with another point. I don't think the Malfoys are acting altruistically at all by making these donations. One of the dirtiest secrets in fundraising is that we devote a lot of time and energy to maximizing the emotional return donors feeling in exchange for their gifts. It's remarkable, but it's not altruistic. It's not even close. How do we know when anything is altruistic? And this is actually a really interesting thing to think about as we begin our journey into thinking about the behaviors and actions that we consider brave and for Gryffindors. Right. Because is it sacrifice? Like, does there have to be some sense of cost that we are able to determine? Like, how do we know people give money all the time and we never really know whether it was given, you know, out of the kindness of their hearts or for a tax refund. Right. And in many ways. Right. I imagine that a lot of foundations and nonprofits and such don't really care whether or not you're doing it for good reasons, because, again, the outcome is what matters here. And so I think it's. I don't want to, again, like, I'm not, I'm not trying to say that the Malfoys are like, you know, good people. They're not. I know that. And I'm not even trying to say that they're. That they are altruistic, but I think it is fascinating for us to kind of take away some of it because they're not doing it for the right reasons. And is that what is required for us to perceive things as being altruistic? In fact, I'm going to look up what it means to be altruistic right now because I'm interested. Showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well being of others. Unselfish. Well, then yeah, they're not altruistic. Okay, wow. Everyone chill out. Stop yelling and stop talking about how right you were. I don't want to hear it. I don't want to hear it. And if you feel vindicated, I'm glad I did that for you. I'm altruistic. I'm altruistic. You see how I was just selfish self. Oops, that was a Freudian slip. I was selfless just then. Cassie wrote, I think almost every selfless act has a selfish motivator or we wouldn't do it. Oop. Okay. The only exception I can think of would be in the moment emergencies in the would be in the moment emergencies where people run into burning buildings or lift cars off people with a jolt of instinct and adrenaline, but even still will benefit selfishly from the high of being the hero afterwards. We see this with Ron as well. While there are varying degrees of ulterior motives for personal gain behind every selfish act, it doesn't negate something that has an overall net positive gain, in my opinion. You see what I'm saying? Now I will also point out, and Cassie wouldn't mind me saying this, that Cassie is a Slytherin. Okay? And so perhaps there's a little bit of bias there because we definitely are aligned. But I'm not saying that what Cassie said was wrong. Huh. Because I said it, too. And I think that there is something to this idea that everyone always gets something out of something. Like, even if it's not your intention, like, there's a way in which. And what's more is it's really, really, really hard to know. It's really hard to know people's intentions. Emma wrote, also, not even to mention the fact that the Malfoys are doing it to cleanse their name after Lucius. Being a notoriously known but not proven Death Eater, I find it interesting what causes they donated to and why. We assume it's to help people, but we really have no idea how it's structured in the Wizarding World. Which is, I think, a really good point and I think also speaks volumes about a lot of the way that we understand their motivations. But again, I ask, do the motivations outweigh the outcome? And that feels really important to consider because, I mean, obviously, as it pertains to altruism, the answer is clearly yes, because unselfishness is like the definition of altruism and it's a value that I know that some people have. But I guess the other thing to think about is, like, are people actually truly, ever altruistic? And in what capacity? Right. Like, especially. And again, and this comes. This is bringing us back to the system in which we live. And can one even really be truly altruistic in a system like the one that we live in, or like the one that the Wizarding world has set up, which is very much like our own? Like, can altruism thrive and survive in a space like that? Can selflessness truly be someone's reality in a space like the Wizarding World, where everyone seems to want to get something and the way that they go about getting it is by whatever means necessary? Right. Like, we see the government acting in ways that is not at all altruistic. We see, you know, teachers acting in ways that are not at all altruistic. Right. And so is it possible to be truly altruistic in a system that is built on the exploitation of creatures, of students, of other people, of Muggles? Right. Like, can you truly be altruistic in that way? Or is the best you've got like some bastardized version of altruism? For our last theme, we are going to be talking about the reputation of Slytherin House, the system that it operates in, and how the fandom views both of those things and puts them into relationship with one another. Many of you wanted to interrogate how Slytherin's reputation got so close, poisoned. And whether it's a failure of Hogwarts, the Sorting System, or a bias in Harry's perspective. And how the Phantom has, you know, in this contemporary moment, stepped in and kind of reframed the house. And sometimes in ways that complicate the things even further. Jazz wrote, most of the Slytherin characters we meet in the books are depicted as bad. The Malfoys, Crab and Goyle, Tommy J. Voldiva, the Gants, all the way back to Salazar himself. Even Slytherin characters that aren't in the story much are presented as bad. Marcus Flint, who plays dirty at every Quidditch game. Millicent Bulstrode, who has Hermione in a headlock. Pansy Parkinson, who never misses an opportunity to insult ortiz. Like, I'm 100% sure that there are a whole load of Slytherins who are decent and even good people, but we just never meet them because they're not relevant to the plot slash Harry story. All of this to say, just like Harry had an immediate bad impression of Slytherin, the readers are encouraged to take the same view from the off. And I think that this is really, really, really important because I think more than any other House. Even though we do get a sense of like Hufflepuff's being this kind of like bootleg house, right? There is no moral valence added to Hufflepuff. They're just like the house you don't want to be in. But not because it's bad, but just because it perceived as lame, I guess, which is a very different type of thing. Merritt wrote, I don't think everyone there is evil or has to be. I answered Slughorn about who best represents Slytherin, but I would like to talk about Slytherin house being the house that maintains pure blood supremacy. The Chamber of Secrets wasn't just an exclusive place. It was created to murder Muggleborns. To murder Muggleborn. Say that five times fast in Hogwarts because Salazar only wanted to have Pure Bloods in Hogwarts. And maybe I'm just being too Gryffindor, but I do think we have to acknowledge that Slytherin has a massive problem, one that is bigger than the other houses and the rest of society. Now this is important and Merritt gave voice to this in our Chronic Overthinker meeting on Saturday as well. Because I raised the point about, you know, Salazar Slytherin potentially being someone who was seeking to kind of defend magical people because at the time when Hogwarts was founded, it was a time in which, you know, magical people were being persecuted by non magical people. And so that there was a high amount of distrust amongst individuals who could not do magic. And yet there were people coming out of those households. And so as a result, like his bias seems to me, undoubtedly, and now this is all kind of headcanon and kind of infusing a historical place that we don't really get a lot out of. We don't really, what am I trying to say? We don't have a lot of historical understanding of what was happening at the time that Hogwarts was founded. However, if we take the time period and understand the way that people were just burning people at the stake for, I don't know, a snake going past your feet. It stands to reason that during this time there was a lot of reasons why Hogwarts was founded during this period. Right. And that Salazar might have taken a perspective that was different than simply just being anti Muggle. Because now, you know, obviously we live in a society where people have hatred for people of certain identities just because. Right. It's different. And so maybe that's the case. I'm not going to take that away. But I also do think that there's a way in which we might be able to find some justification for why he has this mentality, not for the actions that he takes because of that mentality. And so I brought this to bear in the conversation that I had with the chronic overthinkers, and Merritt was like, yeah, I hear that. Also, though, bad. And I'm not going to take anything away from that. Like, I do think that, to Jazz's point, right, all of the people that we meet in this house are bad, dating back to Salazar Slytherin. But I do think it's really difficult for us to be able to determine. Like, we don't ask. Okay, this is what I want to say. This is what I want to say. Okay. I was trying to find my words, and I found them. We never ask ourselves why people are bad in these books. Like, we never ask, like, what would have led people to this. Unless it's Severus Snape, in which case we're, like, wanting to figure it out. Unless it's Draco Malfoy, and then we want to figure it out or blame some other externality for why they behave the way that they do. And I think that there's a way in which we are much less willing to give grace. Even though those are two Slytherin characters, they're also Slytherin characters that have the But Daddy, I can fix him, like, written all over them in a lot of ways. And so there's a way in which, like, there's a desire to get that information by virtue of just simply wanting to repair messes, but we don't extend that to the House. And I think, yes, obviously the house is rife with Pure Blood supremacy. Obviously, it is a House that definitely upholds that supremacy. But we never ask ourselves a question as to how it even happened that they became the House of the Supremacists in the first place. And part of me is intrigued by this particular question because I'm like, there is no way in the 10th century that, you know, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw and Godre Gryffindor weren't pure blood supremacist. Right? It seems to me that, like, there's no way that you weren't. Because all of them were definitely Pure Bloods. Every single one of them were definitely pure bloods. It just. There's no way that they weren't. And the idea then that you could be Pure Bloods and not have some sort of belief about yourself, especially when you're, like, the brightest witches and wizards of the age. Mmm. Seems unlikely to me. It seems like there's a good chance that you all had your own biases. Now, whether or not you were concerned enough about the externalities of the Muggle world around you to do something about it. And by do something, I mean like get a primordial snake and sic it on people who are coming from this community who are able to do magic. Inexplicably, no. Right. But I think that there's a way that we can think about what motivated Salazar's decision because it seemingly. It just simply doesn't come. Well, I shouldn't say it doesn't come. It seems less likely that it would come out of nowhere. Especially because magical people undoubtedly, because historically. Right. Like those are times people are literally getting burnt at the stake. Right? And witchcraft and fear of witchcraft and the notion of magic and the heightened levels of spirit that were manifesting during this time, particularly as we're seeing kind of the infiltration of Christian doctrine moving in and around the world, there are a lot of ways in which we can imagine a space where, yeah, people are being persecuted. And so it's not like the kind of supremacist ideologies that we see now that claim victimhood, reverse sexism, reverse racism, hate against, like heterosexual people. Right. It's not that, because that's not grounded in anything. This is something that historically was undoubtedly grounded in something. And we spent a lot of time talking about that on Saturday. And so if we think about the idea of one, Salazar Slytherin is not kind of coming up with this notion of being skeptical and dubious of non magical people and Muggle borns who are coming out of non magical households. Also the fact that it is very unlikely that somehow, some way, the other three founders are like totally down for this. That seems unlikely because I'm like, if y' all were that down with it, why wouldn't you have opened up the school to, like, why wouldn't you? Why did you make the school so far away and add all these protections to keep Muggles out? Right. Like, clearly you all were trying to do something. The statute of secrecy did not exist. So, like, clearly there's a reason why you all put the castle where you put it and tried to make all of these spells to keep non magical people out. There's a reason. And so I'm not saying that what Salazar Sutherin did is right, but I do think that we have to consider some of the justifications behind it because he is not like other supremacists in that what became supremacy seems to have come from a place of legitimate victimhood. And again, I want to be so clear, like, Salazar Slytherin is a problem. I was really looking for justification for him creating the Chamber Secrets as, like, a cute little secret club and that the basilisk was a mascot. But many of you made it very clear to me that. And, like, went and I asked people to go and find the chapter in Chamber Secrets for Professor Binns is talking about where Professor Binns is talking about the Chamber after the cat, Mrs. Norris is petrified. And it turns out that salads of Slytherin, at least. And this is the other issue at work here. Okay. Because I was making a concession, but now I'm gonna walk it back a little bit. We only know what we are told. And we have talked about this quite a bit in numerous episodes about how the spoils of war always go to the victors and the stories that are told always go to the victors. And we actually don't know anything about Salazar Slytherin's story. Right. Like, all we have, and it's solid evidence, is, like, that the basilisk is there and that he was the only one who could talk to it. And so, clearly he dropped it off. Right. And it could have been for any number of reasons. As to why he did that, we do not know. But I think that there is a way that we have to kind of reconcile our lack of information, the fact that we are predisposed to, by virtue of the way that these books are written to not like Slytherins. And there are reasons why, like, it's legitimate because we don't meet any reasonable ones. But to be fair, we also don't really meet any, like, explicitly bad Gryffindors. So, like, it's so clear to us. And again, like, this is a byproduct of, like, lazy writing, but also, like, it's a children's book. And so we have to have, like, black and white, good and bad. Like, and at the time when these books came out, we weren't really occupying the space we are in now where everybody's morally gray and, like, running around here just doing anything and kind of being everywhere, and everyone's just okay with that. Like, we had to have a good and a bad. And we are presented with that in a number of ways. And the nuance that we've found with the characters now is a byproduct of both where we are at in our own lives, but also the way that writing has changed in terms of how we, like, write these characters. And so like, yes, like there are, like the Slytherin House has a problem, but it's written to be problematic. And yes, like, Slytherin House upholds a lot of very bad, like, supremacist ideology. There's no denying that particular reality. But again, it seems so unlikely to me that every single person is going in Slytherin House is going to kind of represent that. But also what is true is that there are people outside of Slytherin House who are also upholding that ideology. And they are in other houses, they are in Hufflepuff, they are undoubtedly in Ravenclaw, they are undoubtedly in Gryffindor. And so when we think about the notion of pure blood supremacy, I think, yes, they are concentrated in that space, but I think that there are a lot of reasons why that's the case. Some of it is the writing. But even if we were to suspend our disbelief about the writing, some of it is the byproduct of self selection bias. And I'm not going to get off that train. And so I don't want to make any excuses. People have said that I wasn't being hard enough on Slytherins, y'. All. I recognize that Slytherin has the penchant of being problematic. I'm not going to deny that. I'm not going to defend that. What I am going to say though, is that we are never really given the opportunity to see Slytherins not be terrible, to not be prejudiced. And so are we meant to believe that that is just the truth, that there are no good Slytherins at all? Because that seems unrealistic. And if it is the case, right, that there are no good Slytherins, then that reifies my particular belief about selection bias. Because again, every house has pure blood supremacists in it, whether they are active or passive. There are people who are benefiting from pure blood supremacy. They don't have to be Death Eaters, but there are people in those houses that uphold the system. We've talked about them in other episodes and yet the scrutiny is different. And so again, Slytherin House is by no means perfect, but simultaneously, concurrently, and they are not alone. And we are conditioned in these books to see them in a certain way and with good reason. However, they are not the only ones. And I think that's something that we have to remember and consider. Foreign. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you liked today's episode, first of all, thank you please feel free to like rate, subscribe and do all the things that one does where pods are cast y'. All. I tried this episode to make sure that we highlighted the problems of Slytherin House, which admittedly we already knew. So if you felt like I was being too kind before, I hope you feel that I did you justice. Please don't forget that the Gryffindor survey is up on Patreon and will be up on social media. If you don't follow me on social media, please feel free to do so rof, JW on Instagram and ProfW on TikTok y'. All. I cannot wait to talk about Gryffindors because here's the thing. You all have unleashed the beast because you have made me have to go and say all kinds of things about my own house. In this economy, you better know I'm coming for Gryffindors full force. If you're ready to defend yourselves, then do it. Until then, be critical and stay magical, my friends. Bye. That was chaotic, Sam.