THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory

[frugalarugala]

No: HPFGUIDX 116275


A long time ago, in a post far, far away (which I can no longer 
find), I vented my theory that occlumency might be rare because it 
can't be taught, that it might hinge on the mentally closed off frame 
of mind of people/kids in abusive situations. Basically we know of 
four Occlumens--Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort and Harry--and three of 
them seem to share is a crappy childhoods. Dumbledore we just don't 
know about. Hopefully with Aberforth, in future books, we'll learn 
more about his past
 Basically, I have to believe that Dumbledore is 
sane and not-evil. I just have to for myself. Manipulative, yes; 
cruel-to-be-kind, yes; out-and-out evil, no. I have to believe he has 
some kind of good reason for the questionable things he's done and 
isn`t just a balmy old codger.  

Harry's Home Life 
There has to be a good reason justifying Dumbledore letting the 
Dursleys treat Harry as they did--yes, Lily's blood, protecting, yes, 
yes--but it was well within his power to *demand* better treatment. I 
mean, wizards obliviate muggles all the time, simply demanding better 
treatment, by fear, blackmail or spell, was well within his power and 
far less of a human rights violation. And yes, Dumbledore is a 
humanitarian who probably would disapprove of using oblivate at the 
drop of a hat, but he's done plenty of other morally questionable 
things in the name of defeating Voldemort, zapping happy-charms on 
the Dursleys would be *nothing*. Unless their behavior was serving 
his war effort. 

But if occlumency is dependent on a closed-off frame of mind, 
Dumbledore might have felt it was necessary. Not that I'm saying it's 
an act, mind you, I think Vernon and Petunia are both certifiable and 
criminal. I just think Dumbledore might have used their animosity to 
instill the mental defenses Harry needed to not become a mini-Quirrel.

Alienating Slytherins
I almost didn't read the second book because the end of the first, 
when Dumbledore arbitrarily gave the trio enough points to win the 
House Cup--after it had been given to the Slytherins--pissed me off 
that much. All through the books, the blatant favoritism is hard to 
except if Hogwarts is a decent school. And just like Dumbledore not 
being evil or nuts, I think we have to assume that Hogwarts is 
suppose to be a good place. So I think Occlumency and mental openness 
might just explain how the school is run. 

I think Snape and Dumbledore, two occlumens, are playing good-cop/bad-
cop with the Slytherins and Griffindors. Dumbledore alienates the 
Slytherins, Snape favors them, they feel more warmly toward Snape, 
and he clandestinely picks their brains. They reverse roles for 
Griffindor. Basically, with the number of Death Eater kids in 
Slytherin, Dumbledore couldn't expect them feel fuzzy and friendly 
towards *him*, but whether or not their folks like Snape or think 
he's still loyal to Voldemort, he's more likely to be excepted by 
their kids. Hence the necessity of his being unfair to Slytherin: to 
serve them up on a silver platter to Snape. 

Potioncat posted that: 
> But I don't see anything in canon that indicates that 
> Snape has done anything positive for Draco. If anything, he's just 
> another tool in Snape's information gathering job. Which is almost 
> worse than what Snape does to Harry. As Head of House he does have 
a 
> responsibility to Draco. 
--which is what got me off my butt to type up all this theory that 
I've been batting around in my head. I think that's exactly what 
Draco is, an information-gathering tool, but I don't think he's doing 
it consciously. And I do think it's worse, *way* worse than what 
Snape does to Harry.  

Occlumency Lessons 
If it requires a frame of mind, it explains the occlumency lessons, 
both how Snape went about them and why Dumbledore thought Snape would 
be able to teach Harry in the first place. No, I don't think that 
Snape was/is acting, I think he totally detests Harry. But I think 
Dumbledore might take advantage of that. That might be why he himself 
didn't take the time to teach Harry this very important magic 
himself. Teaching Harry to be mentally defensive of Dumbledore might 
hurt the war effort, but the defensive mindset with Snape is already 
in place. 

Imperio (and this is the weakest part of my theory) 
The Imperious Curse seems to be a sort of mental magic, though you 
could argue it works on the morals, or soul, or whatever, too, but 
free will (or lack thereof) is clearly involved, so I'd call it 
mental. 

In GoF, we had the scene where Harry is Imperio'd by Fake!Moody in 
DADA. During the curse, it's as if he's carrying on a little 
conversation in his head about why he should or shouldn't do it. It 
wasn't automatic submission of will, he was able to think about it. 
Fake!Moody had them doing innocuous things, which no kid would find 
objectionable, but what if he had ordered them to do something really 
wrong? A harder fight to resist seems likely. That sounds like an 
occlumency connection to me. Harry was the only one in the class able 
to fight it off, maybe because he's got an occlumens frame of mind? 

But Harry says it gets easier to resist each time. He likes and wants 
to please Fake!Moody who is telling him to resist, which I don't 
think Barty Jr expected or wanted him to be able to do, but anyway... 
If it works a bit like occlumency, then maybe mental closeness 
matters, even when someone's over-riding your will. Now, I'm not 
suggesting that Snape *has* Imperio'd any of the Slytherins. Yet. But 
I think they might be tenderizing them in case they need to. 
Something like: Snape/your protector  + Imperio'd orders = less 
mental resistance. If so, then what Snape's in a position to do to 
Draco might be WAY worse than what he's done to Harry. 

I don't know if Dumbledore would or could do Unforgivable curses, but 
I'm sure Snape could and would
 And the Order includes Aurors, who 
can do it *legally*. 

--Frugalarugala, who can also think up some "interesting" ways to use 
a pensieve