Wizard weaknesses, the unjust world, HP & English individualism, stereotypes

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 29162

Bexis:
> Voldemort takes advantage of wizards' weaknesses -- at least as his
exploitation of Hagrid's alcoholism in P/SS is any indication.  I've got to
believe that he will take advantage (if he hadn't already) of Bagman's
compulsive gambling, and Fudge's love of office.<

Mm, good point.  I've always wondered whether the big V might use Ron's desire for recognition against him.  Which reminds me - we've had the unregistered Animagus twist and the Polyjuice plot device a couple of times now, but I suspect there's a bit more mileage in the Imperius curse.  Could Ron, or, perhaps Percy be Imperio-ed and used to cause havoc in Harry's world?

Susanna:
> We can't stand perfection, if not in ourselves (...) So we feel the need to claim that Fleur is arrogant and not very talented, that Harry only wins because he has Fortuna on his side etc.etc.

It's the ol' Just World Hypothesis at work.  The myth of the level playing field which *should* exist but, sadly, doesn't. People instinctively believe that no-one should be allowed to receive too many of life's fortuitous blessings, like intelligence, good looks, inherited wealth and so on.  It's not FAIR.  Hence when people witness those who seem to have received too many they fall over themselves trying to demonstrate those people's failings in other domains (typically personality) and/or prove that they're not really so great anyway - it's just luck, plastic surgery, extra tuition and so on.  See also my comments on the US meritocracy below...

Edis:
> "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the Wise"

I like this very much, but there's one problem - what fool does not think s/he is one of the Wise?

David:
> It seems that there is a deliberately anarchic strand to the series, and that rule-breaking, if not exactly lauded, 
is condoned.<

This is pretty widepread in Anglophone media.  What sort of people tend to be the protagonists and pivotal characters in our stories?  The rebels, the mavericks, the dangerous, the traitors, the outcasts, the misfits, the persecuted.  Plots R Them!  Those happy types who fit in perfectly and follow all the rules, work or study hard, have nice friends, and do just what their parents or society sees as the right thing typically take centre stage only when the rule system itself breaks down for some reason (personal, societal, etc.) and the plot is in them learning how to deal with this, e.g. the nice, cuddly, new-man husband whose wife dies/cheats/leaves, or the sweet young girl whose parents get divorced (or who gets led astray by some far more interesting, if wicked, rule breaker), or the brave mother whose life is torn apart by war.  Or even the ordinary, prosperous hobbit whose gets yanked out of his comfortable life by a wizard on a quest.

Take fairytales.  Goldilocks?  Jack and the Beanstalk?  Rule-breaking trespassers!  Cinderella?  Doesn't know her place and flouts authority!  Little Red Riding Hood?  Innocent led astray by a predatory villain!  Rumplestiltskin?  Innocent who triumphs over evil by cheating!  And who are the cool, popular, admired kids in teen movies, I ask you?  It certainly ain't the kids that follow all the rules, it's the ones who shrug them off.

Goody goodies are terminally uncool in English-speaking societies.  That's individualism for you - individuals who break rules (especially because they personally feel they are pursuing a higher value than that imposed on them) are showing their independence and asserting their individuality over authority figures who would have everyone pace about in conveniently obedient herds (see my OT rant on individualism).  Adolescence is particularly interesting, because it places people under the dual pressures of demonstrating their individuality and fitting in with their peers.  The class clown/rebel conveniently achieves both.

IMO, Harry Potter books fit right in with classic English individualist values.  I say "English" because the English brand of individualism has some notable differences from the American one, which IMO are closely related to the objections to HP coming from the US. (I also avoid saying "British", because the Celtic races are different again in some ways, and would certainly not like being told they and the English are culturally as one!)  I'm extrapolating here, being Australian rather than English or American, and will humbly back down if Brits and Americans on this list disagree, but English individualism is flavoured by a number of significant factors not present in the US, which include: 

(1) The presence of a long-established blood-based class system
(2) The stiff upper lip (emotional control is considered more laudable than emotional expression), and 
(3) A general cynicism about authority in general, which covers religion, politicians, celebrities, the police, the country and so on, probably closely linked to (1)

All of these are very evident in HP.  (N.B. I covered some of this ground a few months ago for the archivists among you).   Draco's comments about purebloods and so on are straight from the manual for the English upper classes.  Those mudbloods are just Not Quite Our Class, and shouldn't be allowed to pollute the sacred domain of the Top Drawer in the social cabinet.  The Dursleys, too, are very concerned about the image they present, and the status of the jobs people do.  It's also worth remembering that in the interests of cultivating a stiff upper lip, the English upper classes have long been sending their children (particularly boys) from a young age to horrible boarding schools with harsh treatment and bad food to "toughen them up", and it is on this sort of system that the (comparatively benign and kindly) Hogwarts has been based.

One other thing that always strikes me reading HP is the fact that only girls cry in public.  Even screams are almost entirely female in domain, unless something terrifying excuses a scream from a boy (as with Draco in the Forbidden Forest).  This is, undeniably, Emotional Expression, which HP boys would rather strangle than expose in public.  Hermione cries.  Lavender cries.  Cho cries.  First year girls have hysterics.  From memory, we do see "crybaby" Neville looking tearstained, but even he restrains himself in public, and Hero Harry keeps a vicious rein on his tears, even after witnessing a murder and being threatened with gang murder himself, and even though in his mind the only witnesses would be his two best friends and Molly, who is obviously caring and maternal towards him.  At the start of GoF this is particularly obvious - even though his scar, connected with Voldemort, has been agony, he dares not tell anyone but Sirius because he is afraid that he will look like a silly, fussing, weak emotional person.  Sure, he breaks some of the formal school rules, but even under extreme provocation Harry never breaks that most fundamental rule of male behaviour: Do Not Show Emotional Weakness In Public.

This, IMO, is very English indeed.  Formal rules, such as "Thou shalt not go to Hogsmeade without a signed permission form" are the contrivances of authority figures (who are, as I mentioned, regarded with cynicism).  They are designed to keep people in line for authority's convenience, and have no real connection to genuine issues of morality and personal image, integrity and fulfilment.  As such, they were made to be respected when convenient, to avoid punishment, and broken when a higher force comes into play.  Thus when Harry feels isolated and excluded by being forbidden from going to Hogsmeade, he feels that his need for personal fulfilment is much more important that some contrived rule of convenience, and breaks it without a qualm.  On the other hand, when he is confronted with the possibility of murdering Peter, he is facing the breakage of a rule connected directly with personal morality and integrity.  Percy is another good example.  He is lampooned, because he treats "convenience" rules and authority figures with the same reverence the other characters think should be reserved for issues of personal morality and integrity.

Now.  I'm on shakier ground with the US, as I'm not nearly as familiar with the place, but I'll take a stab.  

Americans, unlike the English, tend to encourage people to express their emotions, and do not attach the same stigma to taking authority figures, religion, rules, patriotism, etc. seriously.  The morality/convenience distinction exists, but is not differentiated to the same degree, as the greater Christian influence in the US means that the right/wrong distinction is more globally applied - more people would view breaking rules, lying, etc. as immoral in itself.  It's one thing for the mostly secular/nominally monotheistic English to sneer at politicians, quite another for the more wholeheartedly monotheistic Americans to question the authority of God.

Another factor is that America strives to be a meritocracy, where people's social status and wealth can be presumed to be a reflection of how well they are running their lives: their personal choices, their hard work, their self-discipline, the effort they put into their jobs, relationships, looks, etc., rather than the class or family into which they were born, as was traditionally the case in England.  (In reality it's nowhere near this simple in either country, of course, but let's not complicate things).  As a result, the people who are high achievers, or in authority roles, got there as a result of their own efforts and talents, and should be admired and respected.  Even those have their doubts about whether a particular individual's efforts and talents really merit his/her high position still mostly respect the position itself.  I'm reminded of an interview I saw after September 11th with an American man who said he wasn't sure if Bush was up to the job of leading the country through the next few months said "But he's our president, so I guess we've got to put our faith in him".  Can't see the wizards saying that of Fudge as the Voldemort War approaches, somehow...

Cindy:
> In the abstract, I have difficulty with characters who break the law 
to achieve their goals.  I'd much prefer that characters seek out and 
find clever loopholes and interpretations rather than outright rule-breaking.<

Which would seem to be the exact philosophy behind the booming legal profession in the US... you mustn't break laws, that's Wrong: what you should do is figure out a way to make obeying the rules work for you!

As for the spiel on Evangelicism from Aberforth's Goat/Mike Gray, I for one am glad you accidentally sent this on-list!  A fine coverage of many points I've tried to make myself in a lifetime of negotiating several very different social circles (including a couple of devoutly Christian groups)!

Cindy again:
> Perhaps we shouldn't be bothered by some of the stereotypes in HP, as 
Jason said.  After all, many of the stereotypes are among minor 
players, which I believe are called "stock characters."  If the 
author is to quickly convey the role of a minor character, is it ever 
possible to do this without certain stereotypes? <

Having read a bit of research on stereotypes, I too wonder if it's possible for an author to avoid them in minor characters.  People make generalisations because negotiating the ocean of information flowing in from the social world is nigh unworkable unless we divide it into manageable chunks.  Categorising people according to a handful of notable shared characteristics (using archetypes, stereotypes, etc.) is so much more efficient than trying to process every individual separately that it's very hard to avoid, no matter what our individualist society preaches at us.  Stereotypes are so well-established in our conscious that they pop up automatically.  JKR tells us three things about Hooch - brisk, Quidditch teacher, short hair, and PING!  Up comes the stereotype, like it or not.

A psychology lecturer I once had did a study on stereotypes of Australian Aborigines, and found that while everyone knew what they were, not everyone agreed that they characterised all Aboriginal people.  Interestingly, however, those who disagreed with the stereotypes took about three times as long to respond to questions as those who endorsed them.  Which suggests that stereotypes pop up immediately in all people, but those who rejected it had to put in some extra time and effort to do so.

I'd argue that it's not the stereotype in itself that's the problem, it's how rigidly you apply it, and how open you are to information that contradicts it.  Perhaps I could misquote Edis' quote and say that stereotypes are for the endorsement of the limited, but the guidance of the open-minded...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]