Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 143861

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> Snape's actions must be acknowledge, not just swept under the rug and
> ignore. Umbridge's actions must be acknowledged and not just sweep
> under the rug and ignored. But does it actually have to be 
punishment,
> or are we simply looking for face-to-face acknowledgement? I would 
say
> that the scenario I painted between Harry and Umbridge certainly
> qualifies as 'comeuppance', Harrysoundly puts her in her place, but
> not as punishment.
> 

I think you are onto the heart of the matter, Steve.  Confrontation is 
a very important part of the process.  I would not agree, necessarily, 
that confrontation, acknowledgment, and punishment can be readily 
separated.  Often, they are deeply tied together.  Look at the 
situation in South Africa, where the Truth Commissions are empowered 
to forego jail sentences, etc., if the witnesses testify fully and 
truthfully about what was done and their part in it.  The reports 
coming from the commissions are very powerful.  A similar situation 
occurred in New England churches of the colonial period, where persons 
accused of certain sins were welcomed back into the church after they 
had confessed and asked for forgiveness, with a major part of the 
process consisting of being confronted and cross-examined by members 
of the congregation.  But the testimony we have from those people 
(i.e. their letters and diaries in which they talk about the 
experience) indicate that very few of them regarded themselves as 
having escaped punishment.  In fact, many of them said they would 
rather be whipped than go through that again (an exaggeration, I 
suspect).

Now, as to the scenario of Harry and Umbridge or Harry and 
Snape "having it out," I don't quite think that would quite do.  Let 
us look at what is so deeply satisfying about the Dursley episode (and 
what is so powerful about both the Truth Commission and the church 
examples).  I think what pleases a huge number of people isn't that 
the Dursleys were confronted, but that they were confronted by a THIRD 
PARTY who was roughly a peer of the Dursleys (i.e. not one of Harry's 
schoolmates or age group).  If Harry had lost his temper and had it 
out with the Dursleys, that would have been amusing, but what makes 
the confrontation an issue of justice is that a third person has taken 
up Harry's cause.  Think of it this way -- the third person represents 
society as a whole.  If you are confronted by someone who claims 
you've wronged them, you can simply dismiss their claims as being a 
personal disagreement between you and them.  If, however, a third 
party accuses you of wronging another person, in some substantial way 
society itself is now involved.  This is very important, because it 
emphasizes to the person being accused that this isn't just about a 
personal disagreement between them and one other person.  And it 
emphasizes to the person on whose part the accusation is lodged that 
they are not alone -- thus providing evidence for trust in humanity 
and people in general, an evidence usually very much needed for people 
who have been deeply wronged and treated unfairly.

So, to get back to your scenarios, to make them truly parallel to the 
situation at the Dursleys, and thus satisfying in the same way, Snape 
and Umbridge would have to be confronted by a third party 
speaking "for" Harry -- a third party who, moreover, Snape and/or 
Umbridge must listen to because it would be a rough peer.  What was so 
satisfying about Dumbledore was he was saying, in effect, to the 
Dursleys "I, your peer if not your superior, am here to speak for a 
person I care about, a person you have wronged.  It is not just 
between you and him.  I, a member of the rest of humanity beyond your 
personal relationship, say that you have wronged this person, and on 
behalf of the rest of humanity, I hold you in contempt."  And to Harry 
he was saying, "I, a member of the rest of humanity, care about you 
and feel that these people have treated you abominably.  We, the 
people of the world, are not all like them."

Oh, let me hasten to say to those who might object "Yes, but now Harry 
is an adult," that such intervention by a third-party, while 
absolutely necessary in the case of a child, is also very, very 
important for adults as well.  And to those who say that Lockheart, 
etc. was not necessarily confronted by a third party, I would say that 
Lockheart and others were passing figures.  Third party involvement is 
necessary where the wrong is repeated and longstanding, as with Snape 
and the Dursleys, or particularly grievous, as with Umbridge.  And of 
course, Harry's status as an orphan makes intervention even MORE 
important, as he starts out cut off from trust in people and society.

Dumbledore is no longer present to do this for Harry, so who else 
could?  Who would be a rough peer of Umbridge or Snape who could speak 
out?  Any number of people, actually.  We expect Lupin to be a bigger 
player in Book VII.  If he manages to shake off some of his reticence 
and passivity, perhaps he might upbraid Snape in a manner analogous to 
Dumbledore and the Dursleys.  He would be in a great position to do 
so, as both a friend of Harry and a person intimately familiar with 
the Snape/James situation, as well as a peer of Snape as a professor 
and in age.  McGonnagall would be a good candidate for this as well -- 
and would also be a good candidate to confront Umbridge.  Another good 
candidate for confronting Umbridge as part of a Ministry subplot might 
be Arthur Weasley.


Lupinlore