THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 112389

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.<<<<

Kneasy:
>>> 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.<<<


SSSusan:
Having begun my schooling in the States in the mid-'60s, I am asking 
for clarification:  You're saying that with the '50s model, schools 
did not put the content of "learn this" into the context of a moral 
code or ethics?  It seems to me that, as you argue later--

>>> 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. <<<

--you're saying that it was NOT placed in such a context, but rather 
that was an expectation for teachings in home/church life.   (As an 
aside, I find it interesting that many of us "modern educators" would 
LOVE to see a return of this particular aspect of education to those 
roots, but with the frequently cited concept of _in loco parentis_, 
it's ALL expected to come from the schools.  Just don't cross the 
line and teach them TOO much "morals" or the parents will complain 
about that, too.)

So anyway, back to the topic.  Kneasy is arguing that JKR's Hogwarts 
and the larger WW don't seem too concerned w/ producing "well-
rounded, ethically aware, aesthetically enhanced, socially concerned 
wizards and witches...committed to bettering society."   I'll 
definitely agree with the "aesthetically enhanced," at least as we 
can see it.  No art history/appreciation, no music courses we're 
aware of [the toad chorus only being an invention of Cuaron's], no 
opportunity, even, so it would seem, to learn other languages.  

Or, as Kneasy nicely put 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?<<<


SSSusan again:
It's all pretty much focused on the learning & improvement of magical 
skills & abilities.  There may be *some* discussion of moral use of 
magic, but where is it happening?

Yet, in this, I'll still agree with Nora, who pointed out:
>>> I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is 
the need for reform in the WW. Hold your charges of cultural 
imperialism for a moment, please. We've been told that the Fountain 
is a lie, the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent 
wizards.  Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express
ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*. We
see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood
superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which
are 'inferior'.

He seems to be consciously trying to bust a lot of the ingrained 
prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards would 
consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the rules for 
her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense.

I think we are being perpetually invited to be moral critics of the 
WW and its denizens, and that we are being invited to critique the 
good guys as well as the bad guys--while not falling down the 
slippery slope into considering all actions equivocal. Motivation 
matters in JKR's
world, and the solely self-interested seem to be the worst of the
worst.<<<


SSSusan again:
I agree with this assessment of DD and of what we're being invited to 
do by JKR.  (And I think it's how we often get "bogged down," Kneasy, 
in discussing modern sensibilities & standards.)  Yet, there's still 
that niggling annoyance in wondering how & when our little witches & 
wizards are being exposed to these concepts.  H/R/H have fairly 
routine encounters with DD, enough for Harry, at least, to have heard 
& begun to assimilate the "it's our choices" motto. 

But where do the other kids hear this?  As Kneasy said:
>>> 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.<<<


SSSusan again:
I would say that the operative word there is "brief."  Where do they 
get the discussion of right & wrong uses of magic, of right & wrong 
(period), of ethics, of working against the kinds of lies the 
fountain represents?  It seems to me that what they get is exposure 
to a point system, wherein particular behaviors--*if* noticed/caught--
bring about punishments & rewards.  Lots is ignored.  Not much is 
discussed in terms of intrinsic rightness or wrongness--or even 
comparative rightness or wrongness.  Not much of a mechanism for 
internalization.  Again, Harry tends to have the benefit of "those 
conversations" with DD, but who else gets them??

So, that leads me to this question:  Is JKR's model so recognizably 
a '50s system that we should all just be *assuming* that the 
moral/ethical considerations are being handled at home?  And how does 
that mesh with the kids' not BEING at home 10 months out of each 
year?  (Sorry, Kneasy, I don't think age 11 is or ever has been 
adequate for the more complex issues here.)  And how does it mesh 
with JKR's "invitation" **to us** to consider all the things Nora has 
pointed out that she's inviting us to consider?  We're "modern," and 
so we're invited to consider? while the kids are old school, and so 
it's just not done?  

I really don't think I'm trying to IMPOSE modern standards onto 
Hogwarts; I think Nora has shown that JKR DOES want moral & ethical 
considerations to be important to the WW kids, too.  It just begs the 
question of how the kids are supposed to be considering it all, when 
there's precious little presentation.

Siriusly Snapey Susan