The Dursleys and Being Nice and Civil

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 145710

> lupinlore wrote:
> <SNIP>
> 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).
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> 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.

lealess: Some friends and I were talking about what can be called a
resistance movement and how various such movements have been lauded or
condemned throughout history (I don't know about you, but this was how
I spent my New Year's Eve, that and watching Grizzly Man -- the story
of a self-styled hero).  Thinking about this in light of your
comments, all of which I agree with, I realized that humans can act
heroically alone, and maybe this is what JKR is aiming for, but humans
will be more successful if they work in cooperation with others.  This
is yet another view of social organization, and it has some support,
though not strong, in the Potterverse, specifically with the Trio and
to a lesser extent with the Order.  Dumbledore recognized he needed a
resistance movement against the ambitions of the Death Eaters, the
stupidity of the Ministry, and even the passivity of the general
populace.  No matter how heroic he personally was willing to be,
forming the Order was a far more effective strategy than acting alone.
Of course, he seems to have enjoyed absolute authority over the Order
and now that he's gone, the Order may be rudderless and ineffective.

Similarly, I don't think anyone believes that Harry will prevail
against Voldemort on his own.  Though the final confrontation may be
more-or-less one-on-one, Harry will be standing on the shoulders of
many people to reach that point.  Without the cooperation of Ron and
Hermione, Harry the hero might not be able to complete the tasks set
out for him.  Still, I expect he will be the "leader" of the Trio in
the 7th book, much as Dumbledore led the Order.

Lupinlore:
> 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.

lealess: This is akin to the reason I believe her world is Hobbesian,
as I understand the word.  The wizarding world is basically brutish
and nasty.  Perhaps the perception of people as being tainted by
original sin determines this.  People have limited choices within this
world, and they almost always act to further their own selfish
interest.  Only authority can keep the society in order and everyone
off each others' throats, but authority takes natural rights away from
people.  I agree that JKR is a certain kind of conservative, but I
think this extends beyond individualism to encompass the irresistible
and, to her mind, justified authority of a few, like Dumbledore or
Harry, against the illegitimate authority of others who do not keep
the social contract, like Voldemort.

Lupinlore: 
> 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.

lealess: Interesting, and it's hard to think of a way to discuss this
and bring it on topic.  If this is the message of the books, it is
worrisome to me, but perhaps not to individuals like Sirhan Sirhan,
for example.  And for every Sirius Black in Azkaban, there were
several Death Eaters who did belong there and weren't hoping to get
out soon -- but one Sirius Black reveals as unjust the whole mechanism
of how they got there, regardless of who they were.

lealess