Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 153947

Alla wrote:
> > > Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in
Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they are,
not exactly decide who they are. <snip>
> >
> 
Debbie responded:
> Choice is also an opportunity for a person or character to show what
they can become.  JKR's characters are not unchangeable cartoon
cutouts.  <snip>
> And further evidence that *choice* is important in and of itself: 
Imperius, which takes away the victim's freedom of choice, is an
Unforgivable Curse. <snip>
> 
> 
Alla wrote:
> > > Are you sure though that Dumbledore's primary concern is to give
characters free choices or is his mainly concern is to try to change
of who they are, sort of, their beliefs, etc? <snip>

Carol responds to both:

I agree with Debbie's excellent post, most of which I've snipped for
that reason. As she indicated, second chances would be meaningless if
people could not change, and choices would not be choices if they were
predetermined by the "essence" of the character. 

Even good HP characters--DD, Harry, Ron, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, et
al.--make bad choices, i.e., mistakes (plenty of them). Otherwise,
they would be mere puppets whose actions are determined by their
"essence" and incapable of meaningful choice. And, of course, Snape's
decisions to join the Death Eaters and reveal the Prophecy would be
determined by his evil nature and the "choice" to (re)join
Dumbledore's side would be impossible. His nasty nature would have
compelled him to make those bad "choices," just as PP's disloyal
nature would have made him betray the Potters and Bellatrix's
fanatical nature would have made her torture the Longbottoms. No good
(or right) or evil (or wrong or easy) choices here, no mistakes that
can be regretted and atoned for, only a predetermined good or evil
nature. Surely that can't be what JKR intends us to understand from
Dumbledore's remark. And, setting aside Snape and the opportunity for
redemption which I believe is a key them in the whole series, how do
we account for Regulus Black if our so-called choices are determined
by our "essence" (who we are) and that "essence" can't be changed?

I like Alla's second question. Instead of reading "our choices reveal
who we are" (paraphrased) as meaning "reveal who we are absolutely and
inevitably," maybe we should read it as meaning "reveal who we are
*now*." If that's the case, a wrong choice can indicate that we're
evil or tempted by evil or deluded at that moment, but a right choice
later can indicate that we regret our sins or crimes or errors, that
we're no longer evil or tempted by evil or deluded--in short, that we
can change, that we are not condemned by our nature to a life of evil
and error. And surely, education and example influence the character's
 beliefs and values, and therefore their choices, at least when
they're children (Draco, for example). Even Morfin might have turned
out differently if he'd been in Dumbledore's care rather than Marvolo
Gaunt's.

Possibly we'd be better off examining the characters in terms of
whether they're static (unchanging) or dynamic (changing and
developing as a result of their experiences) rather than in terms of
essentialism vs. existentialism. Maybe the choices in themselves don't
change the character, but they reflect the character's present
qualities and traits--who they are at that time, as Alla implied in
her second question. Beliefs can be changed, or DD would not have
attempted to persuade Draco to come over to the good side and Regulus
would not have rejected the Death Eaters. The whole Snape agument is
meaningless if there's no possibility that he could have felt genuine
remorse and really changed sides, as DD's second chance gave him the
opportunity to do. Even Hermione changes, in SS/PS, as revealed by her
choice to lie about the troll to keep Harry and Ron out of trouble.
That change makes her friendship with Ron and Harry possible, and
(arguably) brings about further change. And Harry has changed, not
only in terms of what he's learned and experienced, but in terms of
how he judges people (Luna and Neville, in particular). He may be
"essentially" good and brave, but he is not "essentially" wise, and he
makes mistakes, which he may or may not learn from. If he learns, for
example, to control his anger or to forgive those who have hurt him,
his "essence" will have changed and those changes will be reflected in
his choices.

So choice can coincide with "essence" *if* that "essence" can change.
If it can't change, choice is meaningless, and Dumbledore's words are
the antithesis of wisdom.

Does that make sense?

Carol, who likes the idea that our choices reveal who we are now, not
who we are absolutely and inevitably, and hopes that it will resolve
the confusion over Dumbledore's rather troubling little speech