Hermione thinks outside the box ; SPEW (was: Am I the only one...)

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 135703

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:

> Phoenixgod countered:
> "No she isn't. She proved that with SPEW. She just jumped into the
> middle of trying to fix a problem without understanding it.  "
> 
> Del replies:
> Hermione spent *hours* researching the House-Elves, in the library 
and
> with people. After a while, she even worked on finding the way to 
see
> them herself.

She understands them so well that she has completely alienated the 
group from cleaning Gryffindor Tower and they all practically hate 
her. She understands them so well that she didn't know that she 
couldn't have freed them anyway because they weren't her elves, but 
she forged ahead anyway. 

Sounds to me like she needs to head back to the library.

 
> IMO, SPEW was very much "thinking outside the box": the WW box that
> says that there's nothing to question about House-Elf enslavement.
> Except that there is. It's even the very first thing we learn about
> House-Elves, through Dobby in CoS: that some of them are extremely
> unhappy having to serve cruel and abusive masters with whom they
> morally disagree. So Hermione questioning the whole House-Elf
> enslavement matter is definitely a sign of thinking outside the box:
> she doesn't simply accept the way things are done in the WW.

See, I think we have a fundamental disagreement here about what 
thinking outside the box means. I contend that looking at a magical 
problem as a muggle is not thinking outside the box, it is thinking 
inside the box of her muggleness. For Hermione, thinking outside the 
box would involve leaving her muggleness behind and considering the 
problem from the point of view of magic--because it is a magical 
problem. if she did, maybe she would do research into how and why 
house elves are bound to masters and what to do about the oaths and 
geases that bind them to abusers.

Instead her grand plan involves knitting hats. 
  
> Phoenixgod wrote:
> "But I think that Hermione generally lacks the imagination to be an
> inventor. She is technically proficient with magic but lacks the
> creative spark to really push the bounderies of anything. She is a
> smart, but conventional thinker."
> 
> Del replies:
> How conventional was it to suggest Polyjuice Potion to weasel 
secrets
> out of Draco?

a good idea anyone whose ever seen an episode of mission impossible 
could have come up with.
 
> How conventional was it to sign up for every additional classes in 
CoS?

For Hermione? Very!
 
> How conventional was it to have Rita interview Harry, and then to 
have
> the interview be published in the Quibbler?

This one I will grant you. Dumbledore should be ashamed of himself.
 
> How conventional was it to Jinx the DA members?

that was just plain stupid. Why have a jinx that takes effect *after* 
the group betrays you.  Utterly useless. Wasn't there any way she 
could have have done something that would prevent betrayal in the 
first place?
 
> Personally, I see many signs of Hermione being very creative when 
she
> wants to. What signs make you think that she is so conventional and
> uncreative? (IOW: do you have canon support for your opinion ;-) ? )

All of your points are about creativity in a nonacademic setting.  
While we have gone pretty far afield from the original point, it was 
about her academic creativity. What signs of that has she shown 
inside the classroom or outside of it with magical experiements (like 
the twins)? She has shown technical proficiency to be sure, but that 
is different than true creativity and inventiveness. As she amply 
demonstrated during HBP and her frustration over her inferior potions.
 
> Phoenixgod wrote:
> "Slavery is wrong in the muggle world so it must be wrong in the
> magical world. she doesn't stop to think that maybe elves work under
> different rules than people do."
> 
> Del replies:
> But that's *precisely* what thinking outside the box is about. 
Taking
> something from one domain and applying it to another domain, that's
> typical of geniuses. By refusing to believe that things are just
> different in the WW, or that the way things are done in the MW is
> irrelevant to the WW, Hermione IS thinking outside the box.

But while the morality of the situation might be the same, there are 
so many differences that you cannot tackle the problem in so 
completely a muggle way as hermione does.  That is why I say she is a 
conventional thinker. Elves are bound by magic and psychology to 
serve.  Even Dobby, oddest little elf of them all, acts incredibly 
servile towards Harry because he likes and respects Harry. Seems to 
me that the problem isn't with notions of elvish servitute , but with 
the abusers they are serving.  But all Hermione can see ins one 
blazing word 

SLAVERY

And she right away makes a decision about what must happen. 
everything she does, (and does badly) is towards that end. But elves 
don't want that end, they just want to be taken care of with respect. 
It is a totally different dynamic than human slavery.
 
Take the Indian caste system
> for example: most Indians had no problem with it for centuries,
> including among the Untouchables themselves. But now that they are
> being influenced and encouraged by people from "Western" cultures,
> more and more Untouchables are daring to change their minds, speak 
out
> and demand a change.

Well, one the first people to point out the inequity of the cast 
system was Ghandi, who was definite not a westerner. In fact 
westerners would probably not be listened to by a vast majority of 
indians because they are by nature outsiders.
 
> Hermione is doing exactly what has to be done whenever a culture is
> supporting something they deem immoral: she's promoting the grant of
> "higher" rights to a caste who doesn't yet enjoy them.

True. And good for her. But I still contend that the methods she uses 
are uncreativity, in-the-box, muggle means.

> Phoenixgod wrote:
> "Her limitations in the social arena I think indicate the problems
> that she would have in the academic one."
> 
> Del replies:
> I totally disagree on this one. The social arena and the academic
> world are not at all the same thing, and they don't need to be
> connected. Geniuses are sometimes socially awkward, or even 
downright
> anti-social.

You are absolutely right. I didn't express myself well enough. let me 
try again:

I think that what I see as her conventional thinking in the social 
justice arena is similar to the conventional thinking she expresses 
in the academic/magical arena. In both places she looks at things 
from a limited perspective.

Even if you disagree, which I have a feeling you will, do you at 
least understand my point a little better?

 Moreover, Hermione is NOT limited in the social arena.
> She looks like she got it wrong with the House-Elves, but she has 
also
> repeatedly shown that she understands people reasonably well.

Well, except for Ron, but I suppose hormones and puberty can blind 
even the great Hermione Granger :)

> In a follow-up post, Phoenixgod wrote:
> "She wasn't thinking outside the box. She was thinking like any 
other
> late twentieth century muggle girl."
> 
> Del replies:
> Exactly! She was thinking like a *Muggle* girl, and that's where her
> genius lay. She DARED apply something Muggle to the magical world, 
and
> *that* was thinking outside the box.

How can a muggle girl thinking like a muggle girl possibly be 
anything other than thinking inside the box of her culture? She is in 
a world with all sorts of differences to that of the one she left 
behind. It seems to me that she didn't even stop to think about what 
additional elements magic and house elf nonhuman thinking patterns 
might have on the situation. She just plowed ahead based on her 
muggle conventions.  
 
> Ever since they arrive at Hogwarts, the Muggle-born kids are told 
that
> the MW and the WW are two different things, and they are encouraged 
to
> leave their "Muggleness" behind.

True. And can you really blame them? Do you know what would happen if 
the muggle world discovered the magical? I think that it is admirable 
for Hermione to take her morality with her, but her tactics are 
conventionally muggle and therefore doomed to failure. You need 
magical solutions to magical problems.

 But Hermione didn't. Instead she
> dared apply a Muggle concept to a magical species. That is *exactly*
> what thinking outside the box is about.

But that strikes me as a colossally dumb. Human slavery is very 
different than House Elf Slavery. There are forces at work in the 
second that are simply not present in the first. 
  
> Phoenixgod wrote:
> "Instead she reacted as if Dobby and every other house elf had 
desires
> and needs exactly like a human would."
> 
> Del replies:
> You forget one important detail: Dobby DOES have desires and needs
> exactly like a human. Hermione did not invent that. Dobby relishes 
in
> his freedom, he is asking for wages, and Hermione had nothing to do 
in
> that. 

Dobby relishes his freedom because he isn't being beat anymore. He 
relishes his money because it is a symbol of his freedom (doesn't 
seem to actually need money). But dobby also practically presses 
himself into servitute whenever Harry comes calling. He does that 
because he likes being what he is, a helper and a servant. He just 
wants to be one that is valued.  The average human thinks a little 
differently about service and servitude.  While House elves clearly 
have the same gamut of emotions and desires as a human they are 
tangled up in a very different psychological makeup.

Unless every human was a butler. Then house elves and people would be 
exactly the same :)

phoenixgod2000