Nel Question #4: Class and Elitism & the Nature of Choice

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 125721


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" <elfundeb at g...> wrote:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> Porphyria also asked some excellent follow-up questions, to which I 
> can add little except to point to elements of OOP that may be 
> relevant to the questions:
> 
> 1. What can we say about the Muggle/Wizard distinction? Is it
> fundamentally elitist that Muggles are incapable of becoming 
> Wizards?
> 

bboyminn:

I touched on this before. What I hear you asking, reframed, is whether
it is fundamentally elitiest that we mere muggles are incapable of
becoming musical or scientific geniuses. 

I think not, it is just the natural order of things. True, there may
be elitism, but it is not in the idea that muggles can't become
magical. Obviously from the Pureblood themes, some wizard consider
themselve a far superior race than muggles. That is elitism, the idea
that /we/ are inherently better than /you/.

While it is obvious that wizards are superior beings in magical ways,
muggle are superior in their knowledge and abilities in technilogical
and scienticfic ways. Each group having developed their particular
genius by applying their abilities in order to fulfill their needs.

Elitism can manifest itself in many way, and is found on many levels
in all aspects of our society. Is it elitist for the jocks to get all
the glory in high school? Is it elitest that those of above average
intellect (the krell boys and nerds) are at the bottom of the H.S.
pecking order, down there with stoners and greasers? So, the answer
is, of course it is, but the greater question is, on a grander scale,
is that a bad thing?

> Debbie:
> 2. Is there anything wrong with the books' depiction of Muggles? Do 
> they unfairly bear the brunt of hostility? 
> 

bboyminn:

In a recent discussion of the good and bad aspects of the Weasley
family, I was reminded of the TV show 'Malcolm in the Middle'. There
is a family that is unbelievably over the top, but at the same time
there is enough truth in it that we can identify with them. The show
reflects the chaos of living in a house full of boys. How parents are
preceived by kids as overbearing, embarassing, and overprotective. It
reflects disfunctional families. It also reflects love, loyalty,
genius (each in their own way), and values. Really does sound like the
Weasleys.

So, I think we need to temper our view of muggles, and especially the
Dursley, with a little artistic license. They are exaggerated, but it
is done to show us just how much truth there is to them. 

Also, the author needs to paint Harry situation as bad, in order of us
to be as enchanted and awed by the wizard world as Harry is; it's the
classic Cinderella story.


> Debbie:
> 3. Is Hogwarts an elitist institution? Does its resemblance to Eton, 
> with its cliquish houses, weird sports, funny uniforms and symbolic,
> honor-based competitions replicate the elitist values of the British
> Empire, critique them, or even satirize them?
> 

bboyminn:

How can it be an elitist school when it is the only school? 

True, Hogwarts does reflect some of the quirks and curiousities of the
UK's private schools (private by US standards, supported by private
rather than public funds).

I think Hogwarts regards itself as the elite school in that it's
members think that /they/ get the best education, and /they/ have the
best school, and /they/ have the best Quidditch teams, and /they/ are
the biggest school. But that's all pretty normal.

I'm sure Cambridge and Oxford look down on each other in the UK, just
as Yale and Harvard look down on each other in the US, but we are not
so much seeing elitism, as school loyalty.



> Debbie:
> 
> 4. Is Harry a member of the elite, even among Wizards? In which ways 
> is he privileged by birth, inheritance, exceptional 'natural' talent 
> or special treatment from powerful benefactors?
> 

bboyminn:

Harry is certainly special and unique as well as famous, and is
regared as such by the wizard world, but that's much different that
/elite/. Harry does not have a 'holier that thou', 'I'm better than
you' attitude. My impression of /elitism/ is that those in the group
set themselves above other by a belief in their own superiority in all
things.

That doesn't fit Harry or his friends.


> Debbie:
> 5. Is there an inconsistency in the way that the books treat the 
> problem
> of Blood vs. Choice? ... Dumbledore explains ... in CoS: "It is our
> choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our 
> abilities."
>

bboyminn:

I'm afraid that people are in error when they take this as an absolute
defining statement of all things in the wizards world. Further, I
think they are mistaken to place so much emphasis on 'Choices'.

Look at what the statement really says; it doesn't say choices define
and dictate any and all things. It says that what we do with our
abilities, that is the choices we make, tell far more about a person
the the actual abilities themselves. You may be a genius, that is an
ability, but how you choose to use your genius tells the world more
about you than the mere fact that you are a genius. It is in this
sense that choices are important.

I seem no conflict between Dumbledore bit of wisdom, and the
separation of wizards and muggles, or the emphasis in the books on
purity of blood. These are all separate issues. 

Just because Dumbledore imparted some wisdom on Harry, does not mean
that wisdom absolutely dictates the essense and nature of the wizard
world. Again, I think people are taking this statement about choice to
too much of an extreme, and are placing undo emphasis on /choice/
while ignoring the overal statement made by Dumbledore. 


> Debbie:
> 
> 6. How do the books explicitly explore the problem of bigotry and 
> elitism? I'm always amused at Draco's multifarious reasons for 
> condemning his opponents: Ron is poor, Hermione is Muggle-born, 
> Hagrid is a servant, andHarry, heaven forbid, keeps the wrong 
> company. [snipped] Do the  books' genuineattempts at criticizing 
> elitism confront ...
> 

bboyminn:

I really don't think elitism is the key question. I think the books
explore human nature, and in their fictional way, touch on issues and
attitudes that we face everyday in real life. Life isn't perfect, but
a fictional book like this can help us see life inconsistencies in
perspective, and help us see what should truly be valued in life. 


On a slight tangent, let's look the wizard's attitude toward muggles
in light of the separation of the muggle and wizard worlds. First,
let's not forget that it was the muggles who force the separation of
the two worlds. Muggle persecution of the wizard world lead to a
permanent breach between them.

Also, it's not unusual in the real world for like-minded individuals
to set themselves apart from others. Illustrations- School for the
Performing Arts,  Chinatown, Church (Catholic/Protestant/Jew), and
many other ways. A good example might be movie stars. They have to
live in a private world of other movie star (Beverly Hills, Malabu,
Bel Aire, Brentwood) because the intrusion of fans and the paparazzi
have made it impossible for them to function in the muggle world. That
parallels wizards nicely.

On the subject of wizards hiding from muggles because muggle would be
wanting magical solutions to all their problems, I'm reminded of Star
Trek's Prime Directive. The Prime Directive states that space
travelers can not interfer with the normal developement of any new
planets they find. They can only exchange technology with planets that
are of nearly equal technological developement to their own.

Think of the chaos that would reign in our world if it were actually
discoovered the Magical Beings were real. It would be the equivalent
to space alien appearing in our world. Some would exalt them as
savoirs, other would condemn them as agents of the Devil. Some would
attempt to control and exploit magic. Other's would want to keep it
hidden for the masses so they could exploit the power for themselves.
Other's would simply try to figure out how they could make a buck of
magic. Each country would try to form magical armies, and develop
magical weapons. People would try to use magic as a way of avoiding
responsibility. In our current world, as a global society, we are
killing ourselves with glutony, but rather than eat less or eat wiser,
we would prefer a magical solution that would let us eat like pigs and
never gain a pound. Chaos I say, utter chaos. 

Following on with the Prime Directive concept, it's possible the all
human beings have this same magical potential in them, but it is
dormant and unevolved. Perhaps the wizards think it is best to let
evolution and social development bring muggle to magic rather than
drop it on unsophisicated masses out of the blue. 

This same concept can be illustrate with genius. There is some
scientific speculation that we all have genius potential. That in
reality, the average human only uses 10% (pick a number) of the
brain's capacity. Imagine the magic we could perform if we could tap
that other 90%. So, the present or absent of the manifestation of
magic in a being, may not be a matter of magic vs muggle, but a matter
of active capability vs dormant capability.

The point here is that, like the Star Trek Prime Directive, it's
probably is best if wizards let muggle socially and developmentally
evolve magical ability through a natural process.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn