THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 112518

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> > Kneasy: 
> > Oh  dear. Look out everybody - Nora is channeling Hermione.
> 
> Actually, it's more like a particularly unholy alliance of Karl 
> Popper and E. O. Hirschmann, the only economist ever with a sense of 
> humor.
> 
> Fudge sure thinks of Dumbledore as something of a radical, and DD 
> certainly is an intellectual radical compared to the rest of the WW.  
> Actually bothering to read the Muggle papers and understanding Muggle 
> society (as opposed to the ineffectual yet charming efforts of an 
> Arthur Weasley) mark him as different.
> 
> And you've read Popper, right, Kneasy?  You're old enough, right? :)
> One of his main ideas is 'piecemeal' political reform, as opposed 
> to 'utopian'.  

Kneasy:
Yep - I'm old enough to have read Popper. None too sure about his
'falsifiability' ideas, but his views on historicism and the rights of
the individual sit snugly on my bookshelf alongside Isiah Berlin,
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Unfortunately most writers are silent on what to do if a significant
proportion of a population doesn't want change. And this is, IMO
the situation that pertains in the WW. Oh, I'm not claiming that
they're all Muggle hating, Elf baiting, "I may not agree with his
methods, but you must admit Voldy has some good ideas" proto-
supremacists, far from it. But every witch and wizard has enough
personal magical power to become so if they are so inclined. 
The potential is there and will always be there so long as magic
exists. And they'd be most reluctant to have their magical
boundaries curtailed, even in the cause of a just  society.

DEs and their supporters apart, the WW is presented as a bunch 
of individualists. They'll probably toe the line if the Ministry (or
whoever) pass sensible legislation -  all well and good. But there
are already laws in place to outlaw the use of the Unforgivables
and to what effect? More or less the same as any law anywhere;
it  'works' until somebody sees an advantage in ignoring it. Enter
Voldy and his little pals. Freedom implies risk - that someone will
use their freedoms in anti-social ways (but individual freedom, even
with that risk, still produces a society streets ahead of any of the
so-called 'ordered' variety IMO).

So far as I can see, there is a choice - either stick with the status
quo and face the certainty of the perpetuation of the likes of
Malfoy (and by extension fresh Voldys) or remove (not ban) the
capability of using personal magical power for the benefit of the
individual. Some people are not persuadable; the 'pureblood
supremacy' is a fiction, we already know that -  so I suspect
do some of its more opportunistic adherents - but reasoning with
them will make little difference;  their attitude is not based on 
reason or logic, it's a belief almost religious in its fervor, an
article of faith.  


> Nora:
> If you force people to actually face (unlike what happened at the end 
> of VW1, with the coverups and denial and 'oh, nothing happened) the 
> results of their own actions, that their precious blood ideology 
> helped a Voldemort rise, you have the start of changing the dominant 
> ethos of a population.  Pureblood supremacy is what let Voldemort 
> rise and collect followers--but I've posted about this before, too.
> 

Kneasy:
Maybe. But it's my contention that he doesn't subscribe to the 'pureblood
manifesto' himself. Doesn't like mudbloods much, but so what? It's a 
means to an end; a lever with which to manipulate others. All he's  after
is power; I can't imagine him sharing it with purebloods out of 
philosophical solidarity.

> Nora:
> I actually think JKR is a rather moralistic writer.  I suspect that 
> all the bad guys are going to get theirs in the end, really.  We know 
> we're not going to have Tempted-by-evil!Harry (per interview), as 
> much as you and the rest of the FEATHERBOAS might like to see it.  
> Voldemort's not going to win, either, and I doubt we're going to get 
> a completely and utterly full of angst and pain and terror ending--
> although I'll be damn disappointed if we don't get at least some 
> angst and pain.
> 
> Dumbledore is JKR's self-admitted moral voice, and I think she's 
> going to *make* things fall out so that he's fundamentally right 
> (although I suspect that the prophecy resolution is going to end up 
> being some special thing of Harry's that DD doesn't have the solution 
> to, though).  Just a suspicion on my part.
>
Kneasy:
Huh! In which  case I'm disappointed in him. The most powerful wizard 
in the world and he acts like a political candidate who doesn't want to 
upset anybody. No firm stance, no outspoken views, no  castigation
of offenders - some moral voice. If, in fact he is. I thought JKR said that
she used DD and Hermione when she wanted to impart *facts*? Can
you provide a reference for the 'moral voice' bit please? I'd be interested
to see it.