Stereotyping

[B Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 84611


I'm feeling a bit  sour.
Not my usual sunny disposition, spreading sweetness and light 
everywhere.
No  song  on my lips, no pat for the neighbour's moggies.
Instead it's a snarl  and a size nine.

When I'm in this sort of mood, friends try and distract me with a pint 
or two, but of course that's not possible by internet. Pity. And what 
has brought me to this pass? I'll  tell you.

Stereotyping.

By the posters.

This post may not see the light of day - it all depends if I can keep 
it within the bounds of civility demanded by the Admin Elves; certainly 
I expect a lot of fans to disagree with it, that's not a problem. But I 
  would be  worried if no-one agreed with me.

The antics in the Potterverse of various characters and groups have 
raised much comment from posters whenever they see a divergence from 
their own patterns of acceptable behaviour. That's to be lauded - in 
such circumstances comparisons are expected and welcome, it's all part 
of the fun and games of analysis (or even post facto rationalisation) 
inherent in a discussion group like ours.
No problem so far.

I start to get itchy when when posters start to flat-out tell JKR that 
she is wrong in what she writes and I become positively  restive when, 
as in a post made recently, there is a comment to the effect that she's 
  not quite as bad as was thought, but she must do  better. Even with a 
*g* tacked onto the end of the paragraph this reads as verging on the 
pretentious and patronising.

Posters, it seems, hate stereotyping - except when it's their own.
Some are determined not to be happy unless JKR writes words that match 
their personal prejudices.

Outbreaks of outrage occur every few weeks.  All it takes is for 
some-one to decry Elvish degradation or sexism or gender typing or 
racism and the pot starts  boiling again. Admittedly, the HP books are 
written from an English viewpoint and many of the readers may not 
appreciate the nuances of social structure and behaviour in this little 
  island. But  strangely, other books don't get the same treatment. When 
comparisons are made to  other fantasies, fictions or even what some 
may consider philosophical or religious source books the same standards 
don't seem to be applied.

Why is it that JKR seems to impel posters to leap onto their dearest 
hobby-horse? Sometimes I  get the  impression that there  has been a 
long, detailed search of the canon just to find an instance where the 
poster can show how 'right-on'  and stuffed  with social rectitude 
their credentials are. The fact that this is a fictional construct and 
not to be taken seriously seems to have passed them by. They also 
joyfully ignore the premise that HP is set  in the UK, which has a very 
different heritage and social history  to their  own society.

OK, let's have a look at  some of the more supposedly contentious  
issues.

Elves seem to be a cause of regular angst  with frequent fulminations 
against the evils of slavery.
All well and good,  but is it applicable?

Slavery has never, ever been a significant part of English society; at 
least not since the Romans left.
Delve  into history and literature and it's quite difficult to find 
more than a few scattered examples of slavery  within the UK. Slavery 
is not part of our tradition. Why then assume that JKR would add such a 
perversion to an essentially English story?

Minority groups (religious or racial) form only a small part of English 
society.
The largest 'groups' (of Asian and African origin and still only 
comprising about 3% of the population each)  have nearly all arrived  
in the UK within my lifetime. They came as free individuals, usually 
for economic reasons; there was no compulsion.
Whatever the experiences  of their ancestors in other  countries 
individuals who come to the UK have, for centuries, received the 
protection of the law.  Judges decided long, long ago that the English 
common law does not allow slavery. Even as far  back as  Shakespeare 
the 'Moor of Venice', Othello, was portrayed as an intelligent man with 
power, not a object of contempt. (I'll admit his portrayal of Shylock 
was inimical; perhaps  because the moneylenders of the time  commonly 
charged interest rates of  66% per year and more. And traditionally 
money-lending had been an occupation specifically reserved for Jews, 
until the Italians started getting in on the act, at which point they 
became the despised group. It was not an occupation that endeared one 
to the hearts of the indebted. Thereafter the Jews got a much better 
press. Generally, what counted was what you did, not what you were, at 
least in the Protestant countries.)  Any flaws he (Othello) possessed 
were those common to any individual of any background, not as inherent 
in his racial ancestry. There was no 'shock-horror' in portraying such 
a  man  400 years ago. I fear there would be if the play were to be 
written now, with every activist and polemicist  ranting about 
stereotyping and 'negative images'. And this is progress, an expression 
of enlightened attitudes? Not in my book.

I  see a parallel with the Elves. It  seems JKR decided to add 
characters from old Scottish folklore  - Brownies. Elves that colonise 
houses, do  the chores for no payment, but vanish when offered gifts or 
  clothes, never to return. (As  an aside, they have long  been 
celebrated as the junior branch of the Guides, the female version of  
the Scouts, helpful pixies who do good things but don't expect  
payment.) Even a superficial analysis of the text militates against  
Elvish slavery. They are too strongly magical, the majority  seem happy 
in their role and the bee in Hermione's bonnet is not
supported by  *anyone* in the canon, not  soft-hearted Hagrid,  not 
compassionate  Dumbledore. Doesn't that  tell you something? Apparently 
not. "I can't wait, I've a conclusion to jump to" seems an all too  
common response.

Yes, Dobby  seems to have been badly treated by the Malfoys. So what? 
You expect baddies to be caring, loving employers? Get real. The plot  
demands baddies, and baddies act badly. Surprised? In contrast Winky is 
pathetic and Kreacher just plain nasty. A trio of very different 
characters formed, just as we were told by DD, by the attitudes of the 
families they are connected to. I don't get  the impression that more 
should be read into  it than that.

Lately sexual stereotyping has been centre stage.  Oh, dear. Am I 
mistaken or  has freedom of choice been banned by some posters? Molly 
in particular has taken the brunt of the criticism. She is at fault 
because she is not  this, that or  the other. Mothers must not present 
a motherly image it seems, or at least only do so in the gaps in their 
busy, professional schedule. All women must conform to a certain 
fashionable profile or be damned. Rubbish. Of  course, Petunia does not 
  get the same amount of flak for the same behaviour  because she is  
not  intended to be a sympathetic character, so it's all right, in fact 
  it's positively  praiseworthy that she embodies a 'negative image'.
Molly  is a well drawn portrait of a common British phenomenon - the 
traditional mum. They can still be found in large numbers, but some 
posters fume at the thought of their very existence in this fictional 
realm,  let alone the factual world. Perhaps they feel threatened by 
her; maybe they are not so secure in their choices after all. Methinks 
they doth protest too much. Some nagging doubts, are there?

I suppose that it is a sort of back-handed  compliment to JKR that so 
many words have been  spouted in a  critique of  a fictional society. 
Those of  you who  have read  my past posts will know that I love 
analysing, dreaming up conspiracies, seeing the worst sides of the 
characters. I'll pervert the plotlines with the best of them. It keeps 
me out of mischief and is essentially harmless. One thing I  will not 
do is moan about JKR not complying with my personal ethics. I  will 
compare the Potterverse ethical stances with my own, yes, but only to 
highlight a point, not to advertise my own smug political platform. 
Because, you see, I accept that there is a possibility that I may be 
mistaken in my  beliefs, that modification may  be required as 
circumstances  change or new evidence comes to light, that  differing 
societies develop  different social strategies. But I fear there are 
some out there who consider themselves fully paid up members of moral 
monopolies that are the sole arbiters of what is right and correct and 
even when faced with a fantasy where good will triumph, it's still not 
good enough for them.

I love an apt quotation, so  here's one from Oliver Cromwell:

"I beg of you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be wrong."


Kneasy