When Harry met Draco, or Pride and Prejudice (non-SHIP)

[jwcpgh]

No: HPFGUIDX 78886

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, B Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
 
> Hermione belongs to the long and distinguished line of social 
reformers
> that, with few exceptions, have been nurtured by the middle class 
> notions
> of right and wrong. I've no doubt but that her parents discussed 
social
> issues frequently and involved Hermione in them from an early age.
> Hermione has right and rectitude on her side. It's in the blood. 
She is 
> for
> the underdog as a matter of principle. Unfortunately, it's rather 
> difficult to
> crusade when the dog, far from being under, has powers that match or
> exceed her own and has a place in the society that is rather more 
secure
> than hers is.

> In the WW, unlike Muggledom, her position is not commensurate with 
her
> principles. She hasn't yet grasped that (with rare exceptions, 
Haiti in 
> the
> 1790s, for one) successful social revolutions are instigated from 
above,
> not from below. Radicals further up the social order are the prime 
> movers
> for the betterment of the oppressed, not other social outcasts. 
Until 
> Hermione
> herself gains equality she'll have no chance of influencing the 
social 
> order.
<snip> 
> Truth and rights are nebulous concepts that change with time and 
> society.
> A right is not a right if it is an imposition on another. Then it 
is a 
> privilege.
> So passes the Divine Right of kings, the right to practice suttee, 
and 
> in the
> UK, the right to physically defend your home when intruders 
encroach.
> So also passes 'right' in the meaning of correct. Compare and 
contrast
> today with what was considered socially correct a century ago. Do 
you
>   claim that it will not change again in the next century?
> 
> Rather than self interest, which carries overtones of financial 
> advancement,
> I'd prefer self identity - ones perception of ones recognition as 
an 
> individual
> and as a member of a group within the social structure. A conflict 
> between
> that and some higher truth or abstract right can become very messy, 
with
> the 'self' taking precedence every time.
> 
> I don't believe that humanity is notably rational. It never has 
been 
> (Heresy!).
> It's rationalising. The first reaction is to act instinctively and 
to 
> think up
> acceptable reasons why, later. Instinct is a honed survival tool 
that 
> has
> served individuals, and by extension society, well for millennia. 
No 
> philosopher
> yet has managed to devise a rational society that wouldn't be sheer 
> hell  for
> at least a proportion of the population. The Law of Unintended 
> Consequences
> rules in all social constructs.
> 
Laura:

You make an interesting point about Hermione.  I wonder if she really 
understands how deeply the blood issue cuts in the WW.  And yeah, the 
house elves are like the Russian peasants.  They were so far down the 
social/economic/educational scale that they couldn't even grasp the 
idea of a revolution, especially one on their behalf run by middle 
class urban intellectuals.  The house elves are so committed to the 
system and so self-identified with their owners that they can't see 
themselves as oppressed. But you can see how belonging to a social 
class that suffers prejudice might make you more likely to be 
involved with liberation movements in general-whether the subjects of 
the movement have asked for your help is another question.  <g>

The whole question of self-interest (or self-identity) vs  an 
abstract "good" may be too tangled ever to tease apart completely.  
Sometimes we justify our actions by believing that we're doing the 
right thing or sometimes we decide that what we know to be the right 
thing is what we want to do.  I think the process goes both ways.  

Harry et al are working their way through their moral development as 
well as their physical and intellectual growth.  They are now, at the 
end of OoP, at the stage where abstract thinking becomes habitual and 
conflicts of self-interest vs conscience can loom very large.  
(Hermione is farther down the developmental road than Ron or Harry, 
obviously.)  The goal is to make them one and the same as often as 
possible, which avoids painful inner tensions.  Harry isn't a 
particularly deep kid at this point but his moral sense is coming 
along just fine-otherwise he wouldn't have cared what his dad and 
Sirius did to Snape.  He wouldn't have identified with Snape at all.  

I still wonder about Snape.  He's an example of someone going against 
what appeals to his inner self because he knows it's wrong-Conflict 
in a big way.  He acts as though he's very uncomfortable around 
people from the Order-he seemed more comfortable with Karkaroff and 
Quirrell, even if he didn't like them, they were on the same page.  
So which will win, Snape's self-identity or his conscience?  Tune in 
for books 6 & 7...

last aside to Kneasy-Sorry about the handshake stuff-I realized too 
late that you probably weren't being literal.  Duh.