Wizard psychology--trying to crack the code (Re: Bullying )

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 140784

> 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: Thanks for taking time to reply, Boca. Your thoughts did help 
me refine my ideas.

First, to back up and set the stage for my previous post: I've been 
trying to figure out how JKR views psychological harm in the WW--
what premise did she start with when she created the world? Since 
she occasionally uses Muggle words to describe situations, I 
initially thought she was saying the WW operated similar to the RW. 
For example: The Longbottoms were called 'insane' and Ron told Harry 
even in the WW it's not normal to hear voices. But then we found out 
while the words were similar to Muggle psychology, in both cases the 
primary afflictions were magical. 

There were other examples which appeared similar to the RW on the 
surface, but grew fuzzy underneath. In OOTP Sirius appeared to have 
symptoms of depression, but he was also subjected to the Dementors 
for a number of years and never received healing at St. Mungos. 
Since there don't seem to be psychological diagnoses in the WW, his 
ailment would probably be classified at St. Mungos as long-term 
dementor exposure. Another example was Harry after the graveyard. 
Listees speculated he was experiencing post-traumatic stress 
disorder in the beginning of OOTP, but the truth is there's no such 
thing in the WW. He was having symptoms of a psychological disorder, 
but then we also find out Voldemort was invading his mind. What 
exactly was going on with him?

There are no psychiatrists/counselors and no Diagnostic and 
Statistic Manual to classify disorders. Instead, people with severe 
magical injuries, whether emotional or physical, are treated at St. 
Mungos. Others who exhibit symptoms might be helped by the use of 
potions, like Hannah Abbott receiving the Draught of Peace and Harry 
the sleeping potion.

Last thought: The state of the soul is very important in the WW. 
There were clues to this in POA, when the Dementor's Kiss was 
described as the worst possible punishment, but not until HBP did 
Rowling give us specifics. HBP seemed to say *soul* damage from 
exposure to Dark arts is even more debilitating than physical or 
psychological damage, because magical people are less resilient in 
that area. Injury to the soul via dark magic is pernicious and may 
even be irreversible, from the little we know. 

> 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".

Jen: I'm still unsure why JKR presented 11-year old Riddle the way 
she did. I *think* your reading may be exactly right, that Riddle 
was a basic sociopath-in-the-making and we're not supposed to read 
too deeply into his psychological make-up. But then she made that 
confusing (to me) comment in the TLC/MN interview:

MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask 
you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?

JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even 
than Voldemort, who never has. 

Jen: Never loved. We found out 'love magic' actually exists and 
Voldemort rejected it in favor of dark magic--no surprise there! I'm 
not sure how a person could choose to believe in the power of love 
magic if he's never been loved, and JKR seems to be agreeing with 
this. So why present him that way? It makes a circular argument--
he's done heinous things by his own choice, yet he was never loved, 
so he's not as culpable, yet he still did heinous things....?

Back to the bullying issue with Boca:
> 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.

Jen: You're right I was talking about something other than bullying 
with Riddle, so he wasn't the best character to throw in the mix. I 
thought of him because he didn't have clarity about his situation. 
He experienced no overt abuse or bullying, but he also didn't 
understand why his mother died & why he was left in an orphanage 
rather than with relatives. He thought his father might come for 
him, but that never materialized. On top of this confusion he 
started performing spontaneous magic and suddenly realized he felt 
powerful and 'special' for the first time in his life. 

Boca:
> 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". 

Jen: Oh, I don't think this ability actually keeps people from 
experiencing any and all harm, it's more that if a person can 
pinpoint the problem as being outside, then he/she isn't so likely 
to suffer feeling victimized. And I'll add that the magical world is 
slightly different because magical children are sometimes able to 
save themselves in ways Muggle children cannot. Like Harry being 
able to escape Dudley's gang by flying to the rooftop; He wasn't in 
control of his magical powers but they still helped him out of a jam 
several times. Someone like Merope was more victimized by her 
father's bullying, losing most of her magical abilities.

> 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).

Jen: I didn't mean no harm was done to Snape. He's actually a very 
difficult one to analyze because we don't know how damaging it is to 
sink into dark magic and then try to return to the other side. He's 
the only person we think has done that, and is still alive to tell 
about it! So I see him being damaged by both experiences, but as to 
what degree from each one--no clue.

Jen