The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 115673


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" <alex51324 at h...>
Alex wrote:

> Just a quick note here: while lots of abused children do not have
> normal psychological development, the range of responses is quite
> varied.  As far as I know, no one is really sure why one person
coming from an abusive background turns out to be, as you say, a
sociopath and another with a similar background turns out more-or-less
OK.  There are lots of theories, but mainly it seems to be a matter of
individual psychological resilience.  Harry's fairly-normal emotional
development is *unusual*--one would probably expect him to have more
problems than he does--but not *completely* unrealistic.  If you took
a hundred RW kids with backgrounds like Harry's (which wouldn't be
tough, provided you left out the almost-killed-by-evil-wizard bit),
you'd expect most of them to show some psychological problems, a few
to be total sociopaths, and a few more to be basically OK despite it
all.  

Carol adds:
Not to mention that late-twentieth-century homes with electricity,
running water, TVs, modern appliances, etc. are not the environment in
which the majority of the human race grew up and developed. Living
conditions in, say, a medieval castle, would be unendurable for most
modern Europeans or Americans--no central heating or air conditioning;
no running water or plumbing. Children can grow up to be productive
citizens under conditions we would consider unliveable, including
disciplinary practices ("spare the rod; spoil the child") that we now
view as abusive. I am not defending the Dursleys. I'm only saying that
for millennia RW children have endured far worse conditions than Harry
does without becoming sociopaths. (Exposure to the mindless violence
of many TV programs and video games is another matter, and Dudley
could be in greater danger than Harry of ending up in prison or an
institution for the criminally insane.)

Just my opinion.

Carol