[HPforGrownups] Acceptable Abuses?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 95777

On 12 Apr 2004 at 14:51, karenoc1 wrote:

> I don't understand about this one Dumbledore incongruity (I apologize 
> if this has been previously discussed!).  I'm wondering why 
> Dumbledore allows his students to be abused at all, and I guess I'm 
> thinking specifically about Snape.

Hi Karen,

I think part of the issue here involves your personal definition of 
abuse.

Abuse is not an *absolute*. We all define it in ways personal to 
ourselves, and that's the first thing we need to realise in trying 
to discuss this onlist, and especially in relation to Harry Potter 
- I suspect - and this is just a suspicion - that some things you 
would consider to be abusive, I wouldn't consider to be so. My 
educational experiences have left me with a very clear idea of what 
I consider to be abusive in relation to children within schools, 
and those ideas are quite different from the modern mainstream 
point of view.

When we consider Hogwarts, under Dumbledore, we need to realise 
that we are talking about a different culture from our own. Let's 
consider what we know about the Wizarding World and the discipline 
of children within it.

We know that as a matter of historical record, Hogwarts has - at 
times - used some very severe forms of discipline - horsewhipping, 
hanging in chains. We don't know exactly when this was used - but I 
suspect it wasn't really that long ago.

We know that Arthur Weasley still has the marks he received when he 
was caught by the groundskeeper when he was at the school - what we 
don't know is whether or not that was normal or commonplace at the 
time - but it may well have been.

We know that Molly Weasley walloped Fred with a broomstick when he 
was about nine years old for giving Ron an acid pop.

There might be other examples - my point is that we have some 
evidence that the Wizarding World is one that has some very 
different ideas about how children should be treated from those 
currently in vogue in the Muggle World. We need to consider 
questions of 'abuse' in line with that evidence.

We know the Wizarding World is rather old-fashioned in many ways. 
This seems to include how children should be treated.
 
> We know, of course, that Dumbledore was angered about 
> Umbridge "manhandling" Marietta Edgecombe.  And we suspect that he 
> would have been greatly angered if he knew about Harry (and Lee 
> Jordan, I think) suffering physical abuse in detention with 
> Umbridge.  But where does Dumbledore stand on emotional abuse?

Just as an observation here - evidence suggests that Order of the 
Phoenix takes place in 1995/1996. It may shock some people to 
realise that under British law as it was in place at that time, 
it's very possible that in a normal 'muggle' private school, 
Umbridge's Quill might have actually been a *legal* method of 
punishment - at least at first, I think it would have probably 
crossed the line at the point it started leaving lasting marks - 
but while it was still instantly self healing, I'd say it would 
have been arguably legal in a regular school (not that you'd have 
such a self-healing instrument in a regular school). I mention this 
because as I have said whether something is abusive or not really 
comes down to personal definitions - but there can also be legal 
definitions. And if this would have been legal in a normal private 
school in Britain under muggle law, given that Wizarding law seems 
to be rather more old fashioned about such matters - I doubt 
there'd be a legal impediment to what Umbridge is doing. Would it 
anger Dumbledore?

> Here, I'm thinking mainly of the episode in PoA, when Neville could 
> not get his (shrinking?) potion to work properly.  Snape gave Neville 
> time to fix it before administering it to Trevor, and we all know 
> that Trevor did not die because of Hermione's aid to Neville.  But 
> Snape fully intended to administer what we can only assume to be 
> poison to Neville's pet.  I know that this scene is a device to 
> demonstrate why Snape would be Neville's worse fear during the 
> boggart lesson, but why does Dumbledore allow a teacher to terrorize 
> a student so viciously?

Well, here's where different personal definitions come into things. 
I don't think that what Snape did on that occasion was necessarily 
emotionally abusive. That doesn't mean I think it was necessarily 
wise, or the right thing to do - because I don't. But abusive... I 
wouldn't categorise in that way.

Now I had a moderately unusual educational upbringing for a variety 
of reasons - and part of that was I eventually wound up in a very 
exclusive private school. The way this school operated was... how 
do I put this. OK - basically, academics were by far, it's number 
one priority. It didn't ignore things like students self esteem,  
peace of mind, etc - but they were secondary concerns to the idea 
of educating us in an academic fashion to do as well as possible. 
If, at the same time, as given an academic education, you could 
also have positive effects in other areas, then that was all well 
and good - but if there was a conflict, academics came first.

I think Snape has that type of educational approach. To him, it is 
his job to ensure his students are as good at potions as they 
possibly can be. Nothing else matters as much. He isn't concerned 
if the students hate him. Or fear him. As long as they get better 
at potions.

And, personally, I don't think that's always a bad approach. At the 
time I wound up in classes where teachers had that attitude - well, 
frankly, that was something I needed. I benefitted greatly from it. 
It was a positive in my life. This can be the right approach for 
some students in some circumstances.

Is it the right approach with regards to Neville? Apparently not - 
but how many teachers are there *really* in any school whose 
methods of teaching work for 100% of students in their classes? 
Honestly, I don't think there's many teachers with a 100% strike 
rate - if any. The fact that the method is bad for Neville doesn't 
make it a bad method.

Maybe Dumbledore lets Snape get away with it, because out of every 
class of 20, 5 students do really well - better than expected - and 
only one does less well. If you've got 5 students benefitting, 14 
doing much the same as possible, and 1 doing poorly - well, that's 
still a net positive. A considerable net positive.

OK - it's not good for Neville - but that doesn't necessarily make 
it abusive. If a teachers methods help more kids than they hurt, I 
find it hard to say the methods are abusive. Now with Snape, I just 
don't know what the numbers are - but I think it's at least 
possible that his methods are having an overall positive effect on 
his students learning.

And even with Neville - what do we know about his education. Well, 
basically, as far as I can work out, it seems he is very good in 
one subject - very poor in one subject, and adequate in his other 
subjects. Consider what McGonnagall says about transfiguration in 
Order of the Phoenix - that Neville's only problem is a lack of 
confidence in that subject. I think McGonnagall is the type of 
teacher who will be brutally honest with her students - so I think 
we can rely on that statement. To me, it seems that Neville is a 
pretty average student. He has strengths and weaknesses, and 
generally gets along pretty smoothly except for his lack of 
confidence. If what Snape did to him showed signs of hurting his 
performance in other subjects as well - then I'd be more concerned. 
But from what I can tell it doesn't seem to - and while his 
confidence seems to be lacking at times, over time he has become 
more confident - that is improving. It is getting better.

Now, I think Snape can be abusive. I've been vocal at time about my 
objection to his behaviour with regards to Hermione's teeth - I 
think that on that occasion, he crossed a huge line. But not 
because of *what* he said - but rather because I can't conceive any 
good reason he said it. Unlike his actions in class, I can't see 
any potential educative value to what he did on that occasion. In 
his classroom behaviour, I can see that potential. So I think he 
can be abusive - but I don't think we can be sure that what he does 
in class falls into that category - as I would define it.

Umbridge's quill - well, the same thing applies there. I definitely 
think Umbridge is abusive in using that quill - but the reason I 
feel that way has very little to do with what the quill does. It 
has to do with her motivations. If Harry had actually *LIED* - in 
other words if the punishment had been deserved, then though I find 
it icky, and it makes my skin crawl to think about it - I wouldn't 
personally consider that punishment to have been abusive (at least 
not up to the point that it started leaving marks that didn't 
instantly heal). What made it abusive was *WHY* Umbridge was doing 
it - not the specifics of what she was doing. In fact, even if 
she'd just given him normal traditional lines, I'd have considered 
her actions abusive - because of the motivation behind it.

I think - within certain sensible limits - it's motivation that 
makes a punishment abusive, rather than the specifics of the 
punishment method.

> There are also other abuses, like the crack Snape made about 
> Hermione's teeth in GoF and the occasions where he purposely 
> sabotaged Harry's work just to give him poor grades.
> 
> Is it any wonder that Harry is *amazed* that Dumbledore trusts Snape 
> implicitly, the teacher who abuses Hogwarts students so pleasurably?  
> After all, Dumbedore is supposed to know about everything that 
> happens at Hogwarts, right?

There's trust and then there's trust.

What does Dumbledore trust Snape with regards to?

My view is that I think Dumbledore trusts Snape to always do what 
he believes is in the best interests of his students (except, 
perhaps, with regards to Harry).

That doesn't mean Dumbledore necessarily has to agree with what 
Snape does - but you can trust someone's motivations, without 
agreeing with the specific things they do based on those 
motivations.  



Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia