Stereotyping

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 84875

--- Kneasy wrote:
> 
> 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.

If you want to decry political correctness, go
ahead and do so.  Don't get all embarrassed about
your project and retreat into name-calling.

It's not "stereotyping" when someone criticizes
the portrayal of particular groups or individuals
in a book.  It's not "stereotyping" when someone
analogizes the treatment of a particular group
(house elves) in a work of fiction with a RW 
social phenomenon (slavery).  Stereotyping means
taking some perceived generality about a group
and applying it either to the group as a whole or
to an individual member of the group.  If you are
really trying to argue that any of the posters
whom you are critiquing have been applying (or
suffering from the inadvertent application of)
stereotypes, you need to explain yourself better.

> 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.

Again, if you need to resort to namecalling, at least get the names
right!  What you've described involves no pretense or patronizing
whatsoever.  You just don't like it when people criticize the stories
based on criteria aimed at social engineering ("the story would be
better if it taught this lesson," or "if it showed this sort of role
model," or "if it inculcated this set of values").  To be honest, I
don't particularly like those criticisms either.  I agree with Steve
(#84678) that a story -- like any other work -- should be valued for
the factors that make it great, and cannot be expected to accomplish
an infinite set of social agendas.  

On the other hand, I disagree with the suggestion in Steve's post, and
to some extent yours, that it is ok for a bestselling author simply to
ignore the fact that her book is being read by millions upon millions
of children.  That, to me, is like the famous athlete (and there have
been many) who says "I am not a role model."  Those athletes are
(were) role models, like it or not.  They can choose to be bad role
models or good ones, but they cannot escape responsibility for their
actions.  I believe that Rowling is very conscious of the level of
influence she wields.  In some areas she has chosen not to preach; in
others (personal responsibility, for instance) her books send a very
clear message.  

> 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.

Not "prejudices"; preferences.  When folks say, for instance, "I wish
there were more strong female characters," they are not saying "JKR's
characters do not fit my image of what women are like"; they are
instead saying "there is a particular type of female character I would
like to see portrayed."  You can agree or disagree about their choice
of words (i.e., what makes a "strong female character").  You can
agree or disagree about whether the characters in the book really lack
the characteristics others want to see portrayed more prominently. 
You can agree or disagree about whether Rowling made good choices in
the characters she chose to portray.  But you cannot really deny that
Rowling made the choices she made, nor that those choices have an
impact on the reader (and, in most cases, different impacts on
different readers).

> 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. 

Oooh, oooh, I think I can still hear the echo of the word
"patronizing" (if you *will* pardon my Yankee spelling); I wonder why
that might be....

> 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.

I think you lack perspective, here.  Works of all types are criticized
for their conformity or failure to conform to all sorts of social
norms.  The more widely circulated a work is, the broader the range of
criticisms, and the HP books are nothing if not well-read.  For a
couple of examples involving similarly well-known fantasy works, try a
websearch on "'Star Wars' & 'Jar Jar' & stereotype" or "'Lord of the
Rings' & 'female characters'". 

> The fact that this is a fictional construct and 
> not to be taken seriously seems to have passed 
> them by. 

Uhhhhh...please excuse me while I get up off the floor and try to stop
chortling.  "Not to be taken seriously"?  In post number 84678 on only
the *most serious* of many Internet discussion groups devoted to these
books?  Were you not taking these fictional constructs seriously when
you started a lengthy thread a few weeks ago speculating about
relationships between Dobby, the Potters and the Malfoys?  

Perhaps what you mean is that Rowling's wizarding universe is not
supposed to have any connection with or bearing upon the real world,
but that claim is just as laughable, if not as obviously so. 
Responsibility for one's one choices -- no bearing upon the real
world?  Explicit moral messages about the need for bipartisan (and
interracial) cooperation in the face of evil -- no connection with
real life?

> 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....
> Slavery is not part of our tradition. Why then assume 
> that JKR would add such a perversion to an essentially 
> English story?

With all due respect to history, I do think that Rowling and her
English readers have probably heard of the concept of slavery.  And
it's not some sort of ungrounded assumption when people draw the
analogy between the situation of the house elves and that of slaves:
Rowling drew the analogy herself, in text, through the mouth of her
favorite character.  Believe, if you prefer to, that the parallel is
an accident, but be sure to keep your eyes and mouth closed against
that sand.

> 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....

I am not familiar with the Scottish folktale Brownies.  But the
parallel (if any) between house elves and Brownies really has no
bearing on the validity of the analogy between house elves and slaves.
 Rowling intentionally created a race of creatures who are regarded by
the witches and wizards as inferior, who serve particular witches and
wizards, without pay, who address those witches and wizards as
"masters," who are not generally free to leave their places of
servitude, and who are not permitted (by their customs or by their
masters, pick whichever you will) to wear regular clothing.  There
simply could be no doubt that Rowling was aware of the parallel --
however imperfect -- to human slavery, even before she had Hermione
explicitly give voice to it.

> 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? 

If all you are trying to say is that many or most of the house elves
do not seek freedom, that does not contradict anything I recall anyone
saying in any of the (many) discussions on this subject.  One of the
looming questions for the next two books concerns the implications of
such "voluntary" slavery.  From the example of Dobby, we know that
there are at least *some* house elves who are unwillingly enslaved.  

"Too strongly magical" sounds as if you think the elves could walk out
whenever they wanted.  Dobby's example, again, refutes that claim. 
And even if the elves were bound to servitude only through social
norms and not by the force of law or magic, I think the majority of
readers would still view the arrangement as akin to slavery.

Why does no one support Hermione?  There is a whole list of possible
alternatives to the reason that your rhetorical question seems to be
aimed at:

1) She is annoying and not well-liked.
2) It's difficult and embarrassing to fight an entrenched social norm,
and it appears unrewarding.  This would be particularly true for many
muggle-born students who are stepping into a new world they do not
understand.
3) It is even more difficult to fight a social institution that has a
strong economic incentive attached to it (free labor).  
4) Students' own self-interest is involved because of the Hogwarts
house elves and in the case of those whose families own house elves.
5) It's confusing that the house elves say they do not want freedom. 
It brings to bear countervailing moral issues, and calls the end
result of the crusade into question. 
6) In the case of Dumbledore, his abstinence may just be another
example of leaving students to their own devices in order to fuel
their self-determination.   

<from a later post>
> Brownies (and I believe by extension Elves) belong 
> to the house not the householder. They stay, even if 
> the family moves.

I will assume that you are correct here although there is conflicting
canon.  Your claim is consistent with the discussion concerning the
Hogwarts elves and some other comments (I think by Ron) about how
elves come with fancy old houses.  It is arguably a bit inconsistent
with Dumbledore's explanation of why Kreacher was able to go to
Narcissa, where the loyalty seemed to be more to the "house" in a
geneological sense.  It is perhaps also a bit inconsistent with the
focus of Dobby, Winky and Kreacher on keeping their *masters'* secrets.  

Either way, I don't see the fact that house elves are bought and sold
with the property -- like a chandelier or a piece of cabinetry -- as
distinguishing their situation from slaves.  They still call the new
owner "master."  They still serve at his or her pleasure, and are
dismissed at his or her pleasure. 

> They *refuse* pay.

Winky and the Hogwarts house elves refuse pay.  Dobby seeks pay.  We
don't know enough to generalize beyond that.  

Query whether pay is of any utility to a house elf who is well-fed and
-housed and is not permitted to leave the premises in any event.  As I
said before, the fact that the house elves accept their situation --
whether because of inertia or tradition or fear that they would have
no other place to go or sheer love of the work -- does not alter the
other aspects that make it resemble slavery.  

> Slaves were never punished by giving them freedom. 
> If they had been, all slave societies would have 
> been hot-beds of slave criminality.

Wrong, actually.  In the American South, it was not unheard of to
threaten a timid or weak slave with being cast out.  It was not easy
for a cast-out slave to find work or a place to live, particularly far
away from a city.  (Compare the reception Dobby got from other
wizarding families to what such a slave might have received from other
plantation owners.)

<back to the original post>
> 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. 

As I've said on those other threads that you are lambasting, I don't
agree with most of the criticisms of Molly as a parent, or of Rowling
for making Molly a prominent character.  But it's wrong to accuse
those posters of "stereotyping" -- what many of them are *objecting*
to is the (perceived) use of a particular stereotype in drawing
Molly's character.  (A stereotype, incidentally, that you recognize in
identifying Molly as "a traditional English mum.")  In your effort at
sarcasm, you also mischaracterize most of the actual criticisms that
were leveled at the presentation of Molly, which focused on such
things as overprotectiveness and undue interference with her grown
kids' personal choices.  As I said, I generally disagree with those
criticisms, but that does not prevent me from listening to them.

> 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?

That kind of personal attack is simply uncalled for.  It would be more
productive to deal with the arguments, rather than resorting to
name-calling and questioning others' integrity.  It is just *possible*
that someone might disagree with you for reasons other than his or her
deep psychological flaws.  It is particularly ironic that you fail to
acknowledge a genuine disagreement and then close with that quote from
Cromwell.

-- Matt