THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 112392

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> 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'.
> 
> And Dumbledore stands against all of this.  I think Azkaban is an 
> utterly sick place, as the idea of a prison that forcibly causes 
> clinical depression in its inmates is a place I could never wish upon 
> my worst enemy.  I have a fellow-thinker from within wizarding 
> society, in Dumbledore.  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.  He's 
> the Voice part of the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model.

Kneasy: 
Oh  dear. Look out everybody - Nora is channeling Hermione.

I don't consider that an occasional phrase here, a comment about
the Ministry statue there, changes DD into a raving activist. His
personal standards may differ from those of the WW as a whole,
but I can't see him instituting a dictatorship to impose them -
because that's what it would take to change the ethos of the WW.

I've posted before - so Voldy gets dead - so what? What difference
will that make to the attitudes of such as Malfoy? None whatsoever.
It didn't when Voldy went down last time, it won't next time. Voldy
did not convince Malfoy of anything, Malfoy was already a supremacist;
probably had been since he lisped his first spell - he just gave him a 
means to express his opinions in a concrete way.

The 'gradual way' is unlikely to work either. How long has DD been
Headmaster at Hogwarts? Any noticeable decline in Slytherin attitudes?
Nope. Certainly he recognises the Statue as an hypocrisy, but that
is no guarantee  that he intends to do anything about it. What support
or encouragement did he give Hermione over SPEW/ELF? None. Zero.
Partly, I suspect because the Elf situation is not what it seems at first
sight - he condones hundreds of unpaid workers at Hogwarts - yes, they
may be happy, but a happy slave is still a slave if the consensus of opinion
holds. But I for one don't believe that Elves are slaves. Mistreated by
certain families they may be, but I'm not convinced that invalidates
the institution of House Elfdom; it's an aberation within it. Much more
to come on this, I think.

I  agree; wizards are not benevolent - at  best they are patronising, at
worst  they're Umbridge. And why? Because they can get away with it,
that's why.  They have power, magical power and if there's one lesson
we can learn from history it's that individuals with power eventually use
it for their own benefit.

You want to break the stranglehold wizards have over others? There's
only one way - take away their magic powers. For ever. It's a final 
resolution to the books that I've offered before and so have one or 
two others that recognise that unless you do so there will always be 
Malfoys and probably a never-ending succession of Voldys too.
People are not perfectible. Power will be used; that is its purpose. 
But since magical power is personal and not delegated by popular
consent and withheld by the will of the majority, there is no guarantee
that it will be used in beneficent ways; it all depends on the inclination
of the wielder. And personally I'd trust no-one that much.

> Nora:
> Shall we make a pact then, dear Kneasy, to try to figure out what in 
> the WW actually conforms to JKR's boundaries and what is presented in 
> order to be a contrast to the ideal boundaries?  Something may be 
> presented as normative in a society, and so we think 'Oh, that's just 
> WW ethics, different than ours, let it fly'...but then the society is 
> presented as being fairly deeply sick.  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.
> 

Oh, no! Idealism! Arrgh!
Ideal society indeed. Ain't no such animal, as I  strongly  suspect you 
appreciate - never has been, never will be. It's all very well for writers
to witter on about utopias, but when you sit down and read their vapid
meanderings it is horrifying, truly awful. There's always a disposessed 
class in background, hewing wood and drawing water for the benefit
of the 'enlightened'. Always seems to be a very ordered society too, 
backed up by coercive means. No thank you. As a libertarian I'm too 
fond of my rights - the right to dissent being of prime importance -
otherwise you are no better than a slave.

JKRs boundaries are interesting, though. I suspect that many are
mirages and will vanish before the end.  Either they will be
explained away or prove to  have existed only in the readers mind
(with the help  of a little misdirection on the part of JKR of course). 
It's woth remembering that what we know of the WW is what we
see through the eyes of a teenage boy - one, moreover, who is a
stranger in a strange land.  Not the most objective witness.
But if you  want to define what you  see as JKRs boundaries, go
right ahead.
I  reserve the right of dissent, naturally.

Kneasy