Apologies and responsibility

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 139208

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, <lady.indigo at g...> wrote:
<SNIP>

> Harry has never attempted to diffuse this additional evidence and 
even 
> create the *possibility* in Snape's mind that he can have a humble 
moment 
> where he admits to his own wrongdoing. He hasn't apologized for his 
own few 
> and minor failings, hasn't even been very sorry for them in 
private. He 
> didn't try to keep things pleasant enough between him and Snape 
that he 
> could learn what it was very important for him to learn in OotP. 
> Would it have worked if he did? Probably not. But he would have 
tried.
> Is it a lot to expect from him? Yes. But it's still not the best 
response to 
> those few moments. It's definitely a realistic response. I'm just 
saying 
> that Harry has not been a saint and, most importantly, has not done 
> everything he could do for his OWN benefit, not Snape's.
> Does this excuse Snape's actions towards Harry? Hell no.
> Are we totally beyond apologies now, all things considered, and 
it's going 
> to be Harry taking the high road - either to put aside his anger 
and work 
> with Snape, or to show some kind of mercy - that indicates his 
maturity 
> instead? In my mind, definitely.
> When someone comes to me with a rebuttal that doesn't involve me 
being made 
> out to be an enabler of Snape's abuse, or someone who's discounted 
the many 
> ways he's a complete bastard, a rebuttal that doesn't refer to 
things Snape 
> had done/would do that Harry had no idea he'd taken any part 
in...those are 
> the debates I'll listen to and stop being stubborn about. Otherwise 
the real 
> issue's being sidetracked in the name of other things, so certainly 
my 
> position on it can't be swayed.
> 

Well, this raises any number of issues.  First of all, does "the way 
Snape's mind works" make any difference in the should's and should 
not's of Harry's interactions with him?  On one level, I suppose it 
does, if Harry were to look for the most practical path that is least 
fraught with friction.  But that is not what Harry is looking for, 
and I, for one, don't think it's appropriate for Harry to look for 
such a path.  Harry and Snape's interactions can be read on any 
number of levels.  There is the practical level, it's true.  There is 
also the psychological level.  On both those levels trying to find 
some accomodation with Snape, or at least making the gesture, is 
appropriate.  But then there is the moral level, and I'm not at all 
sure that such a gesture or policy on Harry's part IS appropriate on 
that level.  And I don't think a lot of the other responders on this 
thread think that is appropriate, either.

Now, the question of people responding to you on levels that aren't 
predicated on you "excusing Snape," etc. -- well, I don't think 
you're going to get that.  One can analytically talk about Harry's 
response to his own failings despite Snape's attitude, but the fact 
of the matter is that just isn't the way life is or the way people 
are.  In these kinds of situations it's impossible, on the level of 
real and actual interaction, to abstract feelings and response from 
context.  You can't talk, realistically and practically, about one 
person's guilt and actions without implying very strongly messages 
about the guilt, or lack thereof, of the other party.  Once again, 
life just isn't that way and people just don't think or act that 
way.  Such is the reason so many real-life problems are intractable.  
It is very easy to say, for example, "why don't the Palestinians and 
the Israelis realize they're both in the wrong," or "why can't 
discussions about racism lead to both parties realizing they have 
prejudices" or "why can't Snape and Harry realize they've both judged 
the other a priori?"  But the fact is the reason that doesn't happen 
is because it's impossible on any wide or deep scale.  Any admission 
of guilt by one party is taken as letting the other party off the 
hook.  Any imputation of guilt to one party is, in effect, in the 
real world of real people interacting in real ways, taken as being an 
excuse for the other party.  It "shouldn't" be that way, if you think 
the world "should" be logical (and I don't see why it should be, but 
a lot of people evidently would like it to be that way).  And so, I'm 
afraid that asking for Harry to "rise above" the situation, or for 
posters not to answer the real-world implications of a certain 
position, is barking up an empty tree.


Lupinlore