THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 112369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:

Firstly - thanks to  Nora and annegirl11 for swimming against the tide
by examining the WW and Hogwarts in terms of a wider frame of 
reference than the usual run of recent posts. Dunno about you, but
just lately I've been having difficulty finding threads that spark any 
interest or enthusiasm at all.
I'm not certain how this post will develop, but a glance at past
efforts indicate a high probabilty of discursive diversions.
 
> Nora: (with major  snips)
> I'm trying to figure out how to functionally work in a discussion, a 
> serious and non-trivial discussion, into any of these classes so far 
> as they've been presented, and I just can't come up with any good 
> concrete specifics on how this would be done.  For example, methinks 
> that Hagrid as CoMC teacher is not exactly going to be imparting a 
> discussion of perspective, even if he asks the kids to draw one of 
> the animals.  That class is overwhelmingly hands-on.  Potions is 
> hands-on.  Transfiguration is all about making things change so 
> McGonagall won't yell at you.  DADA is the one place I can see ethics 
> coming up--Lupin is a good teacher, in part, because he actually 
> makes them think through the process of dealing with a Boggart, and 
> why it works to laugh at it, and what it means.  
>  
> But it still seems important that the all-magic wizarding world is 
> lacking a hell of a lot of things--a serious concept of human rights 
> is a good one, amongst other things.  It is certainly far from a 
> utopia (and, perhaps, getting worse every book), and one of the 
> themes which seems to be growing is how magic has both positive and 
> strongly detrimental affects on society and human relationships.  The 
> WW has worked out things that Muggles haven't, but Muggles have 
> worked out a lot of things that the WW hasn't, and which are coming 
> back to haunt them.  It's the rare visionary like Dumbledore who 
> appreciates what his society is lacking.
> 

One of the more interesting aspects of Hogwarts (and by extension the
wider WW) that seems to slip past most of the members on this site is -
just what sort of society is it modelled  on? Practically all the older
members would answer with little or no hesitation - the 1950s.  Those
of us - the decrepit, the nostalgia ridden (and usually way behind the 
curve when it comes to current educational/sociological theory) have no
trouble identifying the form, structure, teaching philosophy and
behavioural norms of Hogwarts - because our schooling was very similar.

Basically it was pedantic - "this is what you need to know -  learn it."
Very different from modern practices, I'm sure - and don't worry, I'm
not about to vapour on about which is better or worse, But for Hogwarts
to make any sort of sense it is necessary to consider it according to
the standards that Hogwarts (i.e. JKR) has set itself.

It doesn't pretend to produce well-rounded, ethically aware, aesthetically
enhanced, socially concerned wizards and witches, clutching their NEWTS
certificates and committed to bettering society. It is in the business of
churning out functioning wizards - in this respect it resembles a technical
training college more than a grammar school - and it does it very well.

The whole thrust of the curriculum is predicated on the need to master
magic in order to function in society - because if you can't master magic
you're nobody. The Squib is the WW equivalent of the functional illiterate.
With no or few magical skills what future do you  have in a society where
magic is the common currency of work, travel, play and status? You have
no place except at the bottom of the pile. 

Apparently, it takes a long time and intensive study to become magically
'literate'; so much so that there seems to be insufficient time for the study
of ethics or aesthetics. Pity. I'd love to see the list of current best-sellers.
They can't all  be Lockhart ego-trips can they? And what about Hogwarts
library? Are all the books magic-related? 

Of course we may have doubts whether  or no the denizens of the WW
have any aesthetic sense at all. In which case who is going to teach it?
Art - doesn't seem to exist as we know it. A picture that moves as *it*
wills - and demonstrates self-awareness and independent thought can
hardly be considered a statement by the artist.
Literature - none, unless you regard "how to" manuals as literature.
Theatre - non-existent so far as we know. (But I bet I'd laugh my
socks off at the WW  version of "Swan Lake". The mind boggles.)
Music - Celestina Warbeck, The Weird Sisters; that seems to be it.
Fashion - frozen into slight variations on the basic robe.
Architecture - none.
Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the
books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty -
how primitive can you get?    
   
It's a very pragmatic society, probably deliberately so, seemingly 
concerned with the business of everyday affairs, totally uninterested 
in what might loosely be described as cultural matters. I suppose it's
unrealistic to expect JKR to describe every facet of the WW; some
things will get glossed over because of the constraints of time, 
page-space or even the difficulty of conceiving WW equivalents
that are just different enough to be convincing but similar enough
to be intriguing.

Ethics and morality is something else. Everybody has those - or at 
least they claim to. Unfortunately each considers their own variety
of ethics and morality to be the best available (otherwise why aren't
you trying something different?) and in some instances go further
and claim that theirs is the only valid stance possible. This is a
pretty naive view IMO. Look around you; what is acceptable in one
set of circumstances is not acceptable in another and vice versa.

What is considered ethical and moral changes over time, too. I get
irritated with those that read a history book and then judge the 
actions therein by todays standards. It's an egregious mistake
to remove something from its context for judgement - but it's
worse by several orders of magnitude to cherry-pick. (I'll probably
come back to that later.)

Society in the books reads as if it's refreshingly robust. Most
wizards sort out their own personal differences, and be it by stuffing
a satsuma up someone's nose or by hexing their shoes, a rough
justice is maintained. Nobody interferes in the business of others.
What we would now consider bad or inexcusable behaviour causes 
little more than a raised eyebrow. There are no police - Aurors seem
solely interested in DEs - there is only one Court, and no lawyers. All
the laws appear to concern the use or mis-use of magic.

For what we would consider capital crimes there is Azkaban; for lesser
offences, well, we're not sure, but for some at least and taking Harry
and Hagrid as examples, breakage or confiscation of their wand is 
possible. 
A crippling punishment in a world run by magic.  Difficult to think of
a Real World equivalent that would reduce an offender to an equally
impotent powerlessness.

As in society, so in school. Rough and ready behaviour, a certain
measure of violence is considered excusable -  and expected. This
too reminds me of my past - at  the time there seemed to be an
acceptance of mischievous behaviour - up to a certain level, anyway.
Summed up by the old saw "Boys will be boys" I suppose.  Step over
the line and you got punished - seemed fair. As in the Real World
corporal punishment is no longer administered at Hogwarts, though
Filch still pines for the good old days. It's the one anachronism (if
you believe Hogwarts is 50s based). Modern susceptibilities, I'd
guess, though the reality was not as some imagine. Certainly
whenever I was up for punishment I  was  invariably offered a
choice - strokes or detention. Nobody that I can remember chose
detention "What? waste time in a classroom when we could be
having fun? No  thanks." So we took our strokes and then compared
them for 'grouping' and lividity in the changing room afterwards.
No big deal.

We recognise stereotypes among the teachers, too. McGonagall, 
Flitwick, Binns, Snape - they were all there. Didn't take long to work 
out tactics and strategies for coping with them; the strict, the gentle,
the boring, the vicious - everyday obstacles in school life. The only
'type' that was truly feared was the inconsistent - friendly one day,
a hair-triggered monster the next.  But overall the interaction
between staff and pupils at Hogwarts seems commonplace to me,
though doubtless exotic and disturbing to the younger set.

And (no doubt to the distress of Nora) little class-time was spent
discussing ethics or morality. We got that at home or at our local
church. Generally speaking it was a parents responsibility to ensure
that a child understood the moral guidelines that govern society, it
wasn't abrogated over to the educational system. And it was
seen as a parental *duty*, laxity was frowned upon - if a child
misbehaved persistently the parent was first in line for blame. 

I'd expect much the same in the  WW, after all the students are 11
when they start Hogwarts - plenty of time for the moral certainties
to have been inculcated at home. But there is one area where it is 
Hogwarts duty to take the lead -  magical ethics. And so we have
the awfulness of the Unforgivable Curses drummed into their heads,
that and the unsavory-ness of Dark Magic in general. Once again
Hogwarts sticks strictly to its brief - magical subjects and associated
areas only, please. You can forget sex education, home-making,
the nature of government or how to fill in a tax form. Such is not
our business - do those in your own time. This is a school for
Witchcraft and Wizardry - it  says so on the label. 

(There has been informed speculation that JKR based the Unforgivables
on certain aspects of The Universal Charter of Human Rights which
pronounces on the need for guaranteed freedom from named
oppressions -  can't  get much more moral or ethical than that.)

You may accept JKRs boundaries or not -  better to accept, I think.
Wishing some-one else's world to be different is a pretty pointless
exercise; that way frustration lies. I mentioned 'cherry-picking' 
earlier  in the piece. This I'd define as accepting some of the
out-dated aspects of the WW while  castigating others. An example:
Snape and  his teaching methods would be anathema today, but
so would certain behaviours of Harry and his friends. A clique of
students who repeatedly gang up on another bunch and leave them
unconscious on the floor of a train would be headed for major trouble
- Behaviour Orders, compulsory counseling, psychiatric assessments
- the full panoply of Social Services would descend on  them like an
avalanche. But we don't want that do we? Youth Court is such a drag.
Fine; then a little more consistency please -*both* types of behaviour
are fifty years out of date and would no longer be tolerated - believe
that both are integral to the story, take the whole cloth or none at all.

Kneasy