Dumbledore 'forcing' others (Re: Harry learning from Snape)

[Nora Renka]

No: HPFGUIDX 114536


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" 
<elanorpam at y...> wrote:
 
> I'm sorry, but I think that not trying to force your view of right 
> and wrong on other people is a very noble thing to do. It's also 
> the right way to deal with kids, or else you'll completely smother 
> and crush their ability of choosing for themselves and respecting 
> other people's choices. By not trying to force his own image into 
> other people, he's letting them exercize their own individuality, 
> which is a right every single rational creature has.

With Dumbledore, it seems to me, we're running into the classic 
problem that all liberal (small l, natch) societies face, aren't we?  
Individualism is the principle of the highest order, but how do we 
keep things in order such that *everyone* gets to freely exercise 
their individualism, and is not subject to indignity at the hands of 
others?

Dumbledore lets Snape act as he wishes out of respect for Snape's 
individuality, but as the Headmaster of the school (who exercises 
CONSIDERABLE power over what goes on in it--make no mistake, this is 
not merely a hands-off administrative/observational job), he also has 
the responsibility for considering what effect this has on those 
subordinate to his subordinates.  The children are in a rather 
interesting situation; pupils, and therefore subject to the whims of 
their teachers--but also practically wards of the Headmaster, and 
therefore entitled to protection.

> Now I don't know if Snape can be classified as rational, but 
> Rowling herself said Dumbledore considers cruel teachers like Snape 
> an important lesson to be learned (an interview if I remember 
> well). So I suppose he wouldn't try to change him - people should 
> change themselves, not be forced to.

That is indeed interview canon, and I can understand it--but you can 
see that it's certainly not an unproblematic vision!  One cannot 
force another person to change, but there are situations where one 
should also not tolerate the behavior of someone who is unwilling to 
change in how he treats fellow members of society.

I'm well aware that some of what I'm playing with there is rather 
universalized, and disregards some of the conventions of the time and 
place--but I don't think that's enough to shoot down the 
considerations at play here.
 
> And he didn't ask to be in charge of a war, so cut him some 
> slack. :)

He may not have asked, but he has certainly taken on that role, and 
thus is responsible (and I do think openly holds himself responsible) 
for waging this particular battle.

-Nora notes that this thread can and will go on forever and ever, 
surging back into the light whenever fed