The Dursleys and Being Nice and Civil

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 145707

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

 I appreciate
> that Rowling presents the "not nice" aspects of life in her books, 
but
> I wonder if she simply accepts injustice and cruelty more than wants
> to change them.  Arthur's Muggle protection laws, Dumbledore's
> detachment, Remus' reason, Molly's scolding: all of these seem to be
> ineffectual.  We are left with something called "love" which appears
> to me to be sacrificing oneself more than acting with generosity
> towards others in everyday life.
> 

Actually, I think the main key to JKR's stance on these matters is 
her emphasis on the individual and the actions and beliefs of the 
individual.  I do think we have a basic philosophical outlook at 
work, here.  JKR just doesn't seem to like organizations or authority 
very much.  I don't mean she's a fool or an anarchist.  But I do 
think she sees authority and organizations (especially large 
organizations) as necessary evils rather than positive goods.  It 
doesn't help that these basic tendencies become magnified by the 
structure of a story that is, after all, about adventures and heros, 
and thus MUST focus on individuals and shun collectives (and it is 
well to remember that authority in any reasonably developed society, 
even a magical one, is fundamentally a collective phenomenon).

Thus, as you point out, organizations in her story are not to be 
trusted.  The Ministry, the Daily Prophet, and the Wizengamot are 
corrupt.  Hogwarts is primarily benign but fundamentally weak -- i.e. 
unable to realize its own best instincts and helpless even to protect 
itself at crucial junctures.

And as you say, authority doesn't come off well, either.  We really 
have few true examples of authority wielded in a benign and healthy 
way.  Oh, there are benign characters who have authority, but as you 
point out they are rather ineffectual.  Dumbledore is withdrawn and 
seemingly unable to realize his own avowed philosophy at a school 
that is theoretically under his control.  Lupin is noble, but at 
critical moments subborned by his own weakness and self-doubt.  
Arthur, for all his dithering ways, manages to be in some ways the 
healthiest authority figure.  He at least has managed to create a 
reasonably well-functioning family, but he is powerless within the 
political context of the Ministry and even his family is troubled by 
a challenge to his authority in the form of Percy.  Meanwhile figures 
who frankly exert authority are cruel, evil, stupid, or all of the 
above.

JKR has said some of this is deliberate, as she wants to keep the 
focus on Harry and how noble and heroic he is.  Harry just wouldn't 
have as much of a chance to be a hero if, for instance, the Ministry 
were benign and well-functioning.  She has even slipped and admitted, 
obliquely, to preaching in that she wants her young readers to 
realize how noble and heroic it can be to stand up for the right in a 
corrupt world.  However, I do think that deliberate narrative 
strategy is underlain by fundamental philosophy -- i.e. I think JKR 
believes her young readers generally ARE faced with corrupt or at 
least incompetent organizations and by authority that is frequently 
selfish, ineffectual, and sometimes abusive, and which at the least 
must always be regarded with profound suspicion.  

In all of this I think JKR is really a certain kind of conservative.  
That is, she is the old-fashioned kind of conservative who thinks the 
way to deal with the world's problems is through the actions of 
virtuous individuals, and who is profoundly suspicious of any 
authority beyond that of a loving parent and any organization larger 
than the family, the village, and the local church congregation -- 
and thinks even those have a tendency to grow selfish and corrupt.  
If you want to put it in religious terms, she is the kind of 
conservative who thinks that original sin and its crippling effects 
are obvious and omnipresent and become magnified as levels of 
authority and sizes of organization increase.

Where this comes back to your main point is in the question of 
justice.  Given such a view of the world (talking now about her 
fictional universe) the only kind of justice possible is comeuppance 
or, if you prefer, vengeance, because that is the only kind of 
justice an individual, acting more or less outside of the corrupting 
and questionable constraints of larger organizations, can exact.  
Indeed, in such a world the individual is, in a sense, the only locus 
for true justice, because larger organizations and formal 
authorities, although necessary, are so tainted that any justice they 
attempt to provide would inevitably be twisted and off the mark, if 
not downright ineffectual.


Lupinlore