"innate goodness" (Was: JKR's Messages)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 120867


Carol earlier:
> > I don't know about either of you, but I'm bothered by the word
> > "innate," which suggests that their goodness is inborn--a concept
very much at odds with the idea of choice. If they're innately good,
they can make mistakes (and they do), but they can't become evil.<
> 
> Pippin responded:
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you. 'Innate' doesn't have to mean 'inviolate.' 
> Innate goodness can be damaged, and is, by the choices of others and
by the characters' own choices. Once damaged, the characters may have
to fight their own instincts in order to choose good.
> 
>  Further, the characters learn that the choice to resist evil, in 
themselves or in others, may cost them or their friends dearly. To 
make the right choice under those conditions takes courage, and that
is not innate, it has to be cultivated. Tom Riddle, among other
things, chose to cultivate greatness instead.


Carol again:
"Innate" means both "inborn" and "essential to." 

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition in case mine is unclear:

"Main Entry: in·nate
Pronunciation: i-'nAt, 'i-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English innat, from Latin innatus, past participle
of innasci to be born in, from in- + nasci to be born -- more at NATION
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an
individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN <innate behavior>
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : INHERENT
3 : originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the
intellect rather than from experience
- in·nate·ly adverb
- in·nate·ness noun
synonyms INNATE, INBORN, INBRED, CONGENITAL, HEREDITARY mean not
acquired after birth. INNATE applies to qualities or characteristics
that are part of one's inner essential nature <an innate sense of fair
play>."

So if Harry and company are "innately good," goodness is part of their
*essence* and therefore unchangeable and incorruptible. Since Tom
Riddle, in contrast to Harry, is clearly both corruptible and
corrupted, he can't be "innately good." Either he's born morally
neutral and is evil through his own choice, which I hope is the case,
or he's innately evil--born bad, unable to make any choices except
those that lead to his own corruption and the suffering and peril of
those around him.

And what about Draco? Clearly *he* isn't "innately good" or he'd have
resisted the influence of his upbringing and joined Harry's side. Is
he innately evil, then, or just the product of his environment (and a
few unhealthy Slytherin genes)? Suppose that Draco had been raised as
Harry was. Would he have risen from the bullying to become a hero like
Harry or would he have become a bully like Dudley because he's
"innately evil" as Harry is "innately good"?

Granted, all people even in RL have innate tendencies, including
abilities and personality traits (e.g., shyness or aggressiveness),
but surely goodness is not one of these traits. If goodness is inborn,
then its presence or absence is meaningless and characters are trapped
in their own essential nature--born good or born bad and unable to
choose otherwise. Harry must be able to choose to be evil and Draco to
choose to be good in order for their respective goodness and evilness
(if that's a word) to have any meaning. Their *natures* must be the
product of their choices as well as their natural tendencies and
upbringing or Dumbledore's words are just fluff and Harry and Draco
are nothing more than puppets in a morality play.

An innate characteristic, by its nature, cannot be changed. It is the
*essence* of the person. And it seems to me that Harry's *courage* as
well as his "goodness" is innate, a trait that he's born with
(inherited from his Gryffindor parents). So he and the other "innately
good" children are assigned to Gryffindor (or Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw)
and those who are not "innately good" (either potentially or innately
evil) are assigned to Slytherin. (An Essentialist rather than an
Existentialist view of Good and Evil, as Nora would say. Correct me if
I'm wrong, Nora!)

I realize that certain events in the book are at odds with this
concept and that Harry, especially in OoP, seems to be struggling with
anger and the temptation to hurt others. (And that, to my mind, is as
it should be, even if it does make him harder to like.) But notice
that Dumbledore, as Nora has pointed out, says that our choices
*show*--not *determine*--who we truly are. So it's possible that "who
we truly are" has already been predetermined by our "innate" goodness
or badness--unless, of course, a bit of someone else's evil nature
entered into our souls at Godric's Hollow. I don't want this to be
JKR's view--it's certainly not mine--but it's the view suggested by
the phrase "innate goodness." I want you to be right that the choice
to resist evil must be a struggle and that characters (e.g., Harry but
also, more clearly, Snape) must sometimes fight their own instincts in
order to choose good or evil, but that idea conflicts with the idea of
an innately good or evil nature. If some characters are "innately
good," others must be "innately evil"--an idea I find extremely
disturbing.

At any rate, it's the word "innate" that bothers me and I wish that
JKR hadn't used it. And I wish that DD had used "determine" rather
than "show." 

Carol