Official Philip Nel Question #10: Class

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 41477


Elkins:

<snip lots and lots>

Many of JKR's approaches to social class do seem to me to reflect 
precisely the same mind-set that she so loudly and shrilly denounces 
in her depiction of the Dursleys. People like the Dursleys, JKR 
tells us, are wickedly regressive -- brutish, even. They and their 
ilk should be scorned, as should the things that they tend to believe 
in. 

Things like corporal punishment. Things like the death 
penalty. Things like disdain for the lower classes. Things like 
suspicion of the aristocracy. Things like jingoism, and law-and-
orderism, and political paranoia, and the belief that foreigners are 
 intrinsically dubious, not to be trusted. Things like "blood will 
tell." 

We are treated to this at the beginning of each novel, almost as if 
JKR wants to establish her progressive credentials from the very 
outset. Once we move on to the meat of the text, however, it can 
sometimes become a bit difficult to avoid the suspicion that in some 
indefinable way, the spirit of Aunt Marge is pushing the hand that 
holds the pen. 

Blood really *does* seem to tell in the Potterverse, 
and foreign names *do* often serve as a marker of dark allegiance. 
The lower classes are stupid and beneath notice; the aristocracy is 
sinister, and very likely sexually perverse as well. 
Corporal punishment is precisely what children like Draco Malfoy 
deserve, and 
although Hogwarts does not itself permit this, the narrative voice 
positively *exults* whenever the little brat gets physically smacked 
down. The political approach of Crouch Sr. was regrettable, of 
course -- but all the same, you know, his son really *was* 
guilty...and besides, Fudge is ever so much worse. And Sirius Black, 
whom Vernon Dursley so brutishly classifies as gallows-bait, was 
innocent all along. Pettigrew was the real culprit -- and the 
narrative voice rather gives us the impression that the author 
believes that he really *does* "deserve to die."


Me:

I'm going to discuss each issue separately, rather than try to defend 
JKR against the general accusation of being a closet-Dursley. 
Regarding the "blood tells" issue, I'm in agreement with Elkins. I 
also tie it in with a discussion we had recently about Hagrid as an 
unconscious bigot. 

Corporal punishment:
---------------------------
I see the Draco incident (the ferret one) as part of JKR's general 
robust attitude to physical humor. Dobby banging his head on the wall 
and twisting his ears rather shocked me the first time I read CoS, 
but later, as I understood JKR's sense of humor better, I came to 
relish it. It's part of her world - people are forever getting boils, 
belching slugs, getting their arms deboned, are being slammed to the 
ground in Quidditch matches, gluing their teeth together when eating 
fudge, turning into canaries, etc. 
True, Draco was bounced by a teacher, but that was the only time we 
see physical mistreatment by a teacher. The text, also, doesn't 
support this - McGonagall and Hermione condemn it, and though Harry 
and Ron enjoyed it greatly, they don't try to claim that it was 
*right.* 

Aristocracy:
---------------------
The Malfoys are definitely the stereotypical aristocrats. However, it 
is at least implied that the Potters are also an aristocratic family 
(despite their "honest, yeomanry name" <g>). We don't know for sure, 
but since they are such a distinguished family *and* they left Harry 
so much money .... to me, at least, they seem likely candidates. 
Also, and this is just a suggestion, maybe that is one of  the 
reasons that Draco was so anxious at first to befriend Harry? Not 
only because of his celebrity status but also because the Malfoys see 
the Potters as their equals?

Lower Classes:
----------------------
Pip made really good points about this and I can add nothing except 
say that I agree with them. 

Dicentra suggested:

"Or she's not bothering to spell out all their accents at all.
<snip>
So we might have run into children of the lower
class who speak with the "wrong" sort of accent, but JKR didn't think
it was necessary to point it out. "

Yes. And we actually have cannon evidence here. The Creevey's father 
is a milkman. That is, I assume, a working class type of occupation, 
right? But both the Creeveys speech is "normal." There is no 
indication of any accent or different ways of expression. 

Dicentra:

"She can't stop every two seconds to climb on the soap box."

Yep. I quite agree. I also think that JKR is not preoccupied with 
class struggles. I think she is occupied with the major political 
crisis line of our times - ethnic conflicts. 

Death Penalty:
----------------------
You know, I'm against the death penalty.  However, it has sometimes 
crossed my mind that a certain criminal deserves being put to death. 
Being against the death penalty, for me, is not so much about the 
culprit as about the executioner. I am against the death penalty 
because of the reason that JKR gives - that it makes *us* killers. 
That killing another human being, however deserving he may be of 
death, is wrong because of what it does to the executioner. So, IMO, 
that Pettigrew is seen as deserving death doesn't exemplify a 
favorable attitude to the death penalty. Harry's attitude, however, I 
do see as exemplifying *rejection* of the death penalty.
About Sirius being really innocent.  I think that it demonstrates 
another very important reason why the death penalty is inherently 
wrong - the fallibility of the justice system. 

Foreigners:
---------------------
I think that in GoF, at least, JKR is sending a very strong message 
against insular prejudice. Fleur, Krum and Mm. Maxime (three of the 
four major foreign characters we encounter) turn out to be good 
people (probably), and Hagrid himself is shown (implicitly) to have 
been wrong in his anti-foreign sentiments. I have to wonder whether 
the association of foreign names with suspicious characters is a 
literary convention in British literature? If so, JKR is possibly 
using this convention unconsciously. 

"Blood tells":
---------------------
I left this to the end because, alas,  I think that it is true that 
JKR unconsciously holds this opinion. It is the one issue where even 
I sense a "fault line" in the text  ;-). 

First, there is the matter of the genesis of magic children. By 
introducing Muggle-borns and Squibs JKR is apparently describing an 
equal chance system. That is, any person, regardless of family, 
class, race or region, may be found to be magic. 
But ... Squibs, as the text specifically says, are very rare. This 
then of course means that the overwhelming majority of children born 
to magic parents are, in fact, magic. In other words, magic really 
*is* largely hereditary. (The fact that it can occur spontaneously in 
Muggle-borns doesn't necessarily contradict this.  It can easily be 
seen as analogous to a mutation mechanism.)
Not only is magical ability in itself hereditary, I think we actually 
have evidence that the level of magical ability is, by and large, 
hereditary. 
This is *not* specifically said in the text, but ... Hagrid is 
certain that Harry is powerfully magic based on the fact that he is 
his parents' sons. (Elkins pointed this out in a previous message as 
indicating Hagrid's unconscious bigotry, but it may be actually a 
true generalization in the Potterverse.) Even more persuasive, for 
me, though, is the actual correlation that we see between almost all 
the children and their parents (of which we have some information, of 
course). Other than Muggle-borns, the only child of a powerful 
wizard/witch, who isn't himself powerful, is Neville. All the rest - 
the Weasley kids, Harry, Draco, Cedric Diggory, Crouch Jr. - have  
powerful wizards as parents and are themselves *at least* fairly 
powerful. Even Tom Riddle fits into this equation if we substitute 
ancestor for parent. In fact, Harry and Riddle are both exceptionally 
powerful, and both had exceptionally powerful parents/ancestor. So, 
in a tacit, implicit sort of way, familial affiliation seems to play 
a large role in determining the level of magical ability.

Another aspect of familial relationship that is unique, I think, to 
JKR, is the level of physical resemblance between family members and 
the significance of this similarity. Looking at the families we know, 
we have the Weasleys (red headed and freckled each and every one of 
them), Harry's close resemblance to his father, the Patil identical 
twins, the Creevey brothers (both tiny), The pale, grey eyed, pointy 
faced Malfoy pere et fils, Dudley and Vernon, Fleur and Gabrielle and 
Krum and his dad ("He had inherited his father's hooked nose").  
And physical similarity is *significant* in the books. It invariably 
accompanies deeper similarities. Malfoy and Dudley are as nasty as 
their fathers. Harry is like his father in many ways - in courage, 
loyalty, kindness, Quidditch. The Creeveys seem very similar in 
temperament and so do the Patil sisters. Even the Weasleys, who are 
different from each other in many ways, have common basic attributes 
- kindliness, intelligence and integrity (in which they are also 
similar to their parents, of course). 
The fact that physical similarities - which are a manifestation of 
the blood connection - so constantly accompany temperamental AND 
moral similarities *is* rather alarming. It connects temperament and 
personality to blood. It means, for instance, that to be a Malfoy 
really does worsen your chances of being a good person, whereas a 
Weasley can hardly be otherwise. 


Sidenote on Hagrid:
--------------------------
Elkins, the above ties in with your post on Hagrid. If you remember, 
you accused him of various "bigotries." One of them was his "bad 
blood" remark regarding the Malfoy family. I have a half finished 
answer on my computer in which I tried to suggest that at least some 
of these "bigotries" are not Hagrid's but JKR's. Some of my thoughts 
I wrote above. Another point I'd like to add here is that the 
authorial voice never contradicts or disproves that remark. 
In other instances when a character voices a bigoted point of view, 
JKR is careful to show disapproval: Either by having a negative 
character voice it (e.g., Draco and the Mudblood slur); by having a 
positive character (Dumbledore, Hermione) contradict it; or  - when 
Hagrid made anti-foreign remarks - by having the facts disprove it. 
In the case of the Malfoy's "bad blood", the remark is made by a 
positive character, it is not objected to by anybody AND CoS 
continues to show us Lucius and Draco as ever more horrible. 
Particularly at the end, when we find out that it was Lucius who 
masterminded the whole scheme. Unless you already have clear views on 
the ideology of "blood tells", I think you would assume that Hagrid 
was perfectly right, wouldn't you? The Malfoys do stink, and the 
author has given us no alternative explanation of why they stink. 


Naama