Dumbledore's Hypocrisy Was: Re: Hermione's Hypocrisy?(long)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 129213

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

<SNIP>
> 
> Anyways, having said all that, I don't know whether I can join you 
> in calling Dumbledore a hyppocrite.
> 
> Just to make sure that I get the semantics right, I double checked 
> free online dictionary ( Sometimes I get into rather big 
> misunderstandings, simply because I get the definition translated 
> incorrectly in my mind :-))
> 
> So, it states that Hypocrisy is " the act of pretending to have 
> beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess."
> 
> Whatever Dumbledore does or says, it seems to me that Dumbledore 
IS 
> sincere ( when he does not hide the truth of course :-)
> 
> I do think that Dumbledore said that because he wanted Harry to 
> learn from Sirius' mistakes ( again, wrong time, wrong place, zero 
> knowledge of psychology, IMO, but sincerity is here).
> 

<SNIP>

> Is there other definition of hypocrisy which I am not aware of?
> 
> 
> Just my opinion and my opinion only,
> 
> Alla


I agree that "hypocrisy" is not the best term to use for Dumbledore 
at the end of OOTP, for the reason you cite.  Hypocrisy implies a 
conscious effort to decieve, which I don't think is what is going on 
here -- at least, to be more specific, I don't think that's what JKR 
is trying to convey.

Perhaps a better way to characterize DD here is "disingenuous."  
That is "lacking in candor although appearing to be frank."  Now, I 
suppose it is open to discussion as to whether being disingenuous 
implies a conscious effort to decieve, although I don't think it 
necessarily does.  

I think that DD was appearing to be candid with Harry but 
nevertheless leaving unsaid a lot of rather important information 
and/or corollaries.  It can be argued he is doing so, not from a 
conscious effort to decieve, but because to raise them would be too 
emotionally painful.  Perhaps another way of looking at it is that 
DD's approach to Harry is inhibited by a misguided sense of tact 
and/or restraint that unfortunately leads him to deal with these 
matters without fully facing up to the facts.  This is a failing 
common to emotionally restrained individuals.

Thus his discussion of Kreacher lacked an acknowledgment of Harry's 
particular situation.  His discussion of being nice did not take 
into account Harry's recent loss, and his discussion of how damaging 
being ignored is was frankly appalling, considering the conditions 
under which Harry was raised.

So "hypocrite?" No.  "Disingenuous?"  Perhaps.  Restrained to the 
point of ignoring important elephants doing the lambada on his 
carpet?  Definitely.


Lupinlore