"Moral Politics" in the books (was: [HPforGrownups] Moral Ambiguity in Main Characters)

[Dave Hardenbrook]

No: HPFGUIDX 127066

Here's my take on the purported "Moral Ambiguity" in the books...

In his book, _Moral Politics_, cognitive linguist George Lakoff
discusses two major moral worldviews which he refers to as
"Strict Father" and "Nurturing Parent".

In the "Strict Father" worldview, there is an absolute right and an
absolute wrong. -- We are each of us either a "good person" or a
"bad person", with no shades of grey.  Children are assumed to be born
"bad" (i.e. they want to do what "feels good" not what's right) and
they have to be taught right from wrong.

Lakeoff writes, "What is required of the child is OBEDIENCE [emphasis
mine], because the Strict Father is a moral authority who knows right
from wrong."  "Rule-breaking" is a form of disobedience, becuase it is
a defiance of moral authorities.  The "Strict Father" is the sumpreme
arbiter of morals, and therefore to disobey authority, however
seemingly justified, is immoral, by definition.

Lakeoff continues, "It is further assumed that the only way to teach
kids obedience -- that is, right from wrong -- is through punishment,
PAINFUL PUNISHMENT [again, emphasis mine], when they do wrong."  So
when a child does wrong he should be punished with pain, in order to
"make an impression" on him of how immoral he has acted.

In contrast, the "Nurturing Parent" model assumes that children (and
the world as a whole) is basically good, though can certainly be made
better.  Children are to treated with compassion and empathy and
to be taught to exhibit compassion and empathy to others.  You need to
be a friend to your child, building a relationship of mutual trust,
honesty, and open communication.  The "Nurturing Parent" teaches by
example -- He or she is kind and compassionate to the child, so that
the child will learn to be kind and compassionate to others --
especially the weak and disadvantaged who should be protected rather
than bullied.  The overall "Nurturing Parent" view of how the world
should be and how we as human beings should treat each other is one
of partnership, not hierarchal domination.

In his thesis Lakoff is talking about these two models in the context
of American Politics, but since reading it I see how it can be applied
to other things, such as attutides about a very popular children's
book series.

I believe that Jo Rowling's outlook is by-and-large "Nurturing
Parent".  Her positive adult role-models -- Dumbledore, Sirius, the
Weasleys, etc. -- are caring and compassionate people.  They believe
in love, kindness, generosity, and empathy.  When they do enforce
disipline, it is because they are concerned about Harry's safety
(e.g. Lupin when Harry illegally sneaks into Hogsmeade), not because
they insist on unwavering obedience, not "because I say so, that's why!".
Jo's sympahthetic characters believe that "there's more important
things -- friendship and bravery" than always blindly following
authority, good or bad.

Because Jo's POV is "Nurturing Parent", we can expect that she
receives heavy criticism from "Strict Father" thinkers, whose rigid
hierarchal view of the world causes them to equate morality with
obedience to the established authority.  These critics then zero
in on examples of Harry's "disobedience", denouncing it as immoral,
and discount his kind and heroic actions.  Indeed, "Strict Father"
thinkers are believers in a dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself world,
in which we should *not* offer kindness to the weak and helpless.
People who are disadvantaged (like the Weasleys, or House Elves) are
inherently immoral, or else they would "pull themselves up by their
bootstraps".  So why should Harry help lazy slobs like them? -- He
should be following a positive moral authority like the Malfoys, who
are members of the "deserving rich", not that "champion of
commoners... Albus Dumbledore".

"Strict Father" thinkers, while critical of the Potterverse as
a whole, do admire the "Strict Fathers" in the series --
the Dursleys, Snape, Filch, Umbridge -- because they insist on
asserting their moral authority, and even *punish* Harry.  To them,
this is completely right and natural, because in "Strict Father"
thinking, everything is white or black, either you're moral or not,
and those who defy authority are *always* immoral, and therefore
should be punished.  In this POV Harry *IS* "just a nasty little
boy who thinks rules are beneath him"!  And one who time and again,
"gets away" with his "immoral" rule-breaking, which is perceived as
sending a negative, morally ambiguous message to our kids.

I could go on, but I think I've made the main point.  Feel free to
offer your own thoughts/feedback.

-- 
Dave