Bullying was Re: Prodigal Sons

[bocadetomates]

No: HPFGUIDX 140763


> Jen Reese wrote: 
Thinking about Riddle's life vs. Harry's, it occurred to me we 
> have some canon for how JKR may view bullying in Potterverse. In 
> Harry's case, the enemy has always been someone clearly outside 
> himself <snip> None of these relationships seems to have altered   
> Harry's view of 
> *himself* as a worthy person. That's an incredibly important 
> psychological skill, to be able to 'externalize the enemy'. 
> Researchers now believe this ability is connected to the formation 
> of optimism.

Boca now: 
This view on bullying is very convincing to me but still I'd like to
make some objections to some of the examples used, or rather, try and
refine the argument. 

> Jen: OTOH, Riddle experienced abandonment, separation problems and 
> neglect, all of which are very vague and tend to cause a person to 
> internalize the enemy as himself. It's no surprise Riddle thought 
> Dumbledore was a doctor come to take him away to a padded cell--he 
> believed that the problem resided inside himself on *some level*, 
> and directed this outward by hurting others to gain power/control 
> over a situation he had no control over. <snip>

Boca: I think this view is an excellent explanation for the way Harry
is able to handle bullying, and I also follow Voldemort being just the
contrary due to circumstances in his early life (though we're getting
away from the topic of bullying here). But Riddle suspecting
Dumbledore to want to take him to a padded cell - well, that was just
plain realism, wasn't it? Riddle was at that point already so twisted
that the problem actually DID "reside inside himself on some level".

However, if we take directing things outward "by hurting others to
gain power/control over a situation [we have]no control over"
as measure or evidence for this phenomenon of not being able to
externalize the enemy, than nobody, not even Harry, seems to be able
to do that. We have seen nearly everybody, in the WW as well as in the
real world, vent their anger on someone or pull just the right strings
they know will hurt somebody deeply when they feel they are in danger
of getting overridden in an argument.
Anybody who says now that to vent your anger on someone doesn't quite
play in the same league as young Riddle's torturing other kids by
hanging their pets from the rafters (or the things he did later as
Voldie): You're absolutely right. So I think we have to be careful not
to paint in black and white. The world isn't split into people who are
able to externalize the enemy and others who aren't. 
Like I said, even Harry, who has this ability to a great extent,
doesn't walk around in a Dalai-Lama-like mood all the time, chanting
"I am o.k., you are o.k., everybody's o.k.". Even Harry thinks there
might be something wrong with *him*, especially in CoS when he
discovers that "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me". (Touching on
the Horcrux!Harry theme, but this could also be read metaphorically as
JKR's outlook on the "enemy inside"). But I'm drifting off.

> Jen:Now, to apply this to the other situations, perhaps the harm
comes  in for those people who can't clearly see when the enemy is
outside 
> themselves. Snape clearly believed James/Sirius were totally to 
> blame and vice-versa (unless there's more information to come, at 
> least). 

Boca: Do you mean to say that no harm was done to Snape and that that
was because he was able to see that it was James and Sirius' fault
they bullied him and not his own? Then I would like to disagree. 

Actually, I think that a lot of harm was done to Snape, and that the
way he treats Neville and the Trio (and probably, I think, a few
select students in every class he teaches) is the direct expression of
that. Now - trying not to think black/white - this doesn't mean he was
not able to realize it was James and Sirius' fault. There are
thousands of different ways of assigning blame, and it is all too
easily split up between different people (which is also very lucky
because most situations are too complex to assign blame to just one
person/one word they said/one thing they did.). 

So Snape might (have) be(en) thinking or feeling something along the
lines of: "Bullies always come for weak people, so I'm a weak person,
and it's disgusting to bully someone who is weaker than yourself, so
James/Sirius are disgusting". So James and Sirius making Snape think
of himself as a weak person (that is, inflicting harm on him, and a
way of Snape internalizing the enemy to some extent) wouldn't
stop Snape from realising the bullying was their fault. In fact, being
*completely* unable to externalize the enemy seems to be really rare,
or we would have more people saying: "Well, they *had* to beat me up,
really, because I *am* such a pain..." and less people like Snape who
nurse the deepest of hatreds for their bullies.

Jen: <snip>
> This idea won't work for everyone on this list ;), not with a hot 
> button issue. It's an intesting framework though, and one backed up 
> by research in Muggle circles.

Boca: It certainly works for me, I just wanted to point out that
Neville isn't the only one in an ambiguous position in this framework.

Bocadetomates 
(whose own experiences in being bullied probably influenced more of
her positions then shed'd have liked. BTW, are there any people on the
list, who would out themselves as having been the bullies? I think
many bullying incidents aren't even recognised to be just that by the
bullies themselves...)