What everyone said! Two things, which may not be coherent.
One, the patronage system... to me it's not entirely unfamiliar / sad, especially if you go into Third World countries or countries with a long history of colonialism and poor economic prospects. The Wizarding World is very much a beleaguered minority (JKR has enforced that separation too), and it governs itself in such a way. Except, I wouldn't call it patronage. I'd call it nepotism. It's the sort of system which thrives in a lot of immigrant cultures... for example it's not out of the question for a family friend to be put up in the United States, shown around, etc. eating the same food and staying there rent-free. My family's "protection" extends to everyone in the extended clan-group, including my cousin's boyfriend, including the sons and daughters of people they haven't seen in twenty years.
My culture is perfectly capable of operating in a "non-survivor" mode, but we choose to distribute our resources in terms of the family and the extended clan, including nepotism for paid positions and favors. To the traditional mindset, it may be illegal but it is "fair".
IMO what we have in HP is a guest-culture that has a huge socio-economic divide. Where do the hags fall in? Where do the half-bloods fall in? The Squibs? Those not educated in Hogwarts? I'd say it's not that different from the rich mestizo / poor native divide. Dumbledore is -the- patron, true, as he holds a great amount of power in the WW. But Lucius is -the- patron when it comes to it economically, regardless of his ideology. The Weasleys are patrons only in the sense that their family is so huge they have eyes and ears everywhere; a human resource. I guess what I'm saying is there isn't necessarily a polarity, but a web of alliances and relationships which ultimately make up the culture. We are only watching the upper crust of the WW in their patronage system.
Where, for instance, do the Lovegoods lie? They're not smalltime... they operate a small press and apparently can afford to travel widely. But they are not at the top of the heap socially. I think we've been spoiled by the parade of characters who are "important" within the Wizarding World... we get the most information about them. Do we ever hear more about Pettigrew's grandmother? Dean's family? No. It's like drawing a conclusion about America by watching a certain tax bracket in Washington, D.C. The patronage system is a good model, but only for the top. In the end I suspect it's the same, top to bottom -- it was the people Dumbledore got to know who are his Inner Circle, the ones he mingled with.
no subject
One, the patronage system... to me it's not entirely unfamiliar / sad, especially if you go into Third World countries or countries with a long history of colonialism and poor economic prospects. The Wizarding World is very much a beleaguered minority (JKR has enforced that separation too), and it governs itself in such a way. Except, I wouldn't call it patronage. I'd call it nepotism. It's the sort of system which thrives in a lot of immigrant cultures... for example it's not out of the question for a family friend to be put up in the United States, shown around, etc. eating the same food and staying there rent-free. My family's "protection" extends to everyone in the extended clan-group, including my cousin's boyfriend, including the sons and daughters of people they haven't seen in twenty years.
My culture is perfectly capable of operating in a "non-survivor" mode, but we choose to distribute our resources in terms of the family and the extended clan, including nepotism for paid positions and favors. To the traditional mindset, it may be illegal but it is "fair".
IMO what we have in HP is a guest-culture that has a huge socio-economic divide. Where do the hags fall in? Where do the half-bloods fall in? The Squibs? Those not educated in Hogwarts? I'd say it's not that different from the rich mestizo / poor native divide. Dumbledore is -the- patron, true, as he holds a great amount of power in the WW. But Lucius is -the- patron when it comes to it economically, regardless of his ideology. The Weasleys are patrons only in the sense that their family is so huge they have eyes and ears everywhere; a human resource. I guess what I'm saying is there isn't necessarily a polarity, but a web of alliances and relationships which ultimately make up the culture. We are only watching the upper crust of the WW in their patronage system.
Where, for instance, do the Lovegoods lie? They're not smalltime... they operate a small press and apparently can afford to travel widely. But they are not at the top of the heap socially. I think we've been spoiled by the parade of characters who are "important" within the Wizarding World... we get the most information about them. Do we ever hear more about Pettigrew's grandmother? Dean's family? No. It's like drawing a conclusion about America by watching a certain tax bracket in Washington, D.C. The patronage system is a good model, but only for the top. In the end I suspect it's the same, top to bottom -- it was the people Dumbledore got to know who are his Inner Circle, the ones he mingled with.