Thoughts on Umbridge (long) (Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape)

[sbursztynski]

No: HPFGUIDX 153029

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
> Carol responds:
> While I agree that there's a lesson here and that Umbridge is an
> allegorical figure never intended as a two-dimensional character, 
let
> me get one small disagreement out of the way before I present my 
own
> half-formed thoughts on the subject. Harry thinks she looks like
> "someone's maiden aunt" until he sees her from the front and
> recognizes her as the witch from his hearing, someone who clearly
> wanted him to be convicted of underage magic. And even before he 
knew
> where she stood with regard to his own personal education and 
welfare,
> he thought that she looked like a toad with a fly (the silly little
> bow) unwisely perched on her head. He expects her to speak in a 
croak,
> and the sweet little girl voice, like the polite little "hem! hem!"
> signals fake niceness from the first.
> 
> Granted, she's not meant to be a terrifying figure like the slit-
nosed
> monster Voldemort, but she's certainly meant to be revolting from 
the
> start. The pink cardigan and "Alice band" and kittens are all part 
of
> a little-girl image that contrasts absurdly with her pouchy eyes 
and
> wide toadlike mouth with little pointy teeth. (A toad with teeth?) 
The
> absurd contrast between her appearance and behavior verges on the
> comic, like the caricatures of politicians in political cartoons, 
and
> yet it's never truly comic because we know from the first that 
she's
> out to get Harry. (I suspect, as I said in another post, that she's
> manipulated Fudge into viewing both him and DD as dangerous to the
> MoM, but I've already stated my views on that topic.)
> 
> We next see her at Hogwarts, giving a speech full of "waffle" with
> "important stuff" hidden in it: "Progress for progress's sake 
should
> be discouraged" and whatever is undesirable in the curriculum is 
to be
> "pruned." Hermione arrives immediately at the correct 
conclusion: "The
> Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts."
> 
> We've already seen JKR making digs at politics and bureaucracy via
> Fudge (who is nevertheless, IMO, a more human and sympathetic
> character than Umbridge, however weak and foolish and easily
> manipulated he may be. I rather liked him in "The Other Minister,"
> where he's forced to concede that he's been deluded). But something
> more is going on here: not politics as usual in the WW but politics
> entering the educational system, bureaucratic control of the
> curriculum. Umbridge (rhetorically) asks Hermione is she's a
> "Ministry-trained educational expert" (OoP Am. ed. 242), implying 
that
> she herself is such an "expert."
> 
> I'm not British, so I'm not on solid ground here, but I wonder 
whether
> JKR, who took some sort of course in teacher training before 
teaching
> French in Scotland, is covertly critiquing either the state-
controlled
> British school system or the educational theory that passes for
> teacher training in some places. (I could talk about my 
own "training"
> to teach when I received my B.S. in Ed. back in the 1970s, but 
that's
> ancient history and I'm an American. IMHO, matters have become even
> worse here--sixth graders  of my acquaintance can barely read and
> think that Afghanistan is in South America--but I'm more 
interested in
> whether there's a connection with trends in British education.
> 
> Before I continue along this line, looking at Umbridge herself in 
the
> classroom, let me note that she reminds me of two diametrically
> opposed characters from literature, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, 
who
> believed that the mass of people could not think for themselves and
> had to be led and cared for like sheep (anyone who tried to 
persuade
> them to think for themselves was a troublemaker who had to be 
killed
> for the public good--Harry's detentions, anyone?) and Dickens's
> Wackford Squeers, the sadistic schoolmaster who "teaches" the boys 
at
> Dotheboys Hall by providing them with useless and inaccurate
> information and beating or starving them into submission. The Grand
> Inquisitor believes that he's acting for the good of the common 
people
> by maintaining their ignorance and dependence on him and others 
like
> him; Squeers is a caricature of a schoolmaster whose name and
> appearance are darkly comic, as Umbridge's are, who sadistically
> abuses his pupils for his own advantage without giving them the
> education their parents or guardians are paying for. (Obviously 
there
> are differences here, but Dickens is satirizing a certain type of
> school that really existed in his time in the hope of calling 
public
> attention to the abuse, and I'm wondering if JKR is doing something
> similar with Umbridge.)
> 
> If anyone is interested in following up the High Inquisitor/Grand
> Inquisitor parallel (surely the name of her office suggests a
> connection?), the Grand Inquisitor dream scene from "The Brothers
> Karamazov" can be read here:
> 
> 
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky
/grand.html
> 
> and an analysis pointing out its key elements can be read here:
> 
> 
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky
/grand-analysis.html
> 
> To return to canon, Umbridge treats the students as if they were
> kindergarten children, saying in her opening speech how happy she 
is
> to see their "happy little faces," making them say "Good afternoon,
> Professor Umbridge," suppressing discussion, and punishing 
dissenting
> opinions with detention. (I'm surprised that Hermione didn't at 
least
> have points docked for her criticism of the text; Harry's 
detentions,
> however, relate to the more important issue of contradicting the
> official Ministry doctrine that Voldemort has returned. Such "lies"
> must be punished, and cruelly.)
> 
> And there's the whole matter of teaching defensive *theory* 
instead of
> practical defense. Not only does the textbook, "Defensive Magical
> *Theory*" by Wilbert *Slinkhard*) contain no practical information 
on
> casting spells, Umbridge has the students read it in class (surely
> they should read the books outside class and at least discuss what
> they've read?) In marked contrast to Snape in HBP, she tells them 
to
> put "wands away" and tells Hermione that she "can't imagine any
> situation arising in her classroom that would require [students] to
> *use* a defensive spell" (242).
> 
> Obviously such a class (in contrast to Snape's) is worse than 
useless
> in preparing students to confront Voldemort and the Death Eaters, 
and
> is intended to perpetuate the official Ministry position that LV is
> not returning. But I'm wondering is it's also a caricature of
> educational theory, or theory in general. The textbook is as 
boring as
> Professor Binns' lectures; the words slide through Harry's brain
> without making any impression (240). The three goals of the class,
> which remind me of the "behavioral objectives" I was supposed to
> formulate in creating a lesson plan back in those useless education
> classes I took in the 70s, reveal the uselessness of the theory
> they're learning, particularly the third one: "Placing the use of
> defensive magic in a context for practical use" 
(340). "Placing "use"
> in a context for "use"? What? Come again? Do these words mean
> anything, or are they just a circular waffle? (Which reminds me of 
the
> title and author of one of the first-year textbooks, "Magical 
Theory"
> by Adalbert *Waffling*.)
> 
> So: allegory, caricature, satire, attacks on bureaucracy and the 
type
> of "education" (indoctrination) that expects students to be 
attentive
> little children passively absorbing approved theories and 
principles,
> possible connections to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor who wants to
> relieve the masses of responsibility so that they can remain 
happily
> ignorant and punishes (kills) troublemakers who raise doubts in 
their
> minds. What does it all mean? Does the depiction of Umbridge have 
any
> relevance to educational trends in the UK or the "dumbing down" of
> education? Surely it's more than a plot device to get a bureaucrat
> into Hogwarts to thwart the students' practical training in DADA 
and
> usurp control through her increasingly invasive decrees.
> 
> Or are we just supposed to hate her because she's mean to Harry?
> 
> Carol, hoping that someone will respond given the length of time 
she's
> spent composing this post!

Sue here: Hi, Carol,  very interesting post! I'm living in Australia 
and was brought up here, so am not quite familiar with the British 
system. 

The impression I get from the events of OOP is that Umbridge is sent 
to Hogwarts - or, rather, gets herself into Hogwarts, for one reason 
and one only: to interfere with the actions of that Muggle-lover, 
Dumbledore. DD seems to be a lot more than just a school Principal 
(and I should say, in all the years I've been working in the school 
system, I have never encountered anyone that wonderful to work 
with). The school is a reflection of the WW in general, especially 
as it later appears in HBP, with fear and loathing and people 
accusing each other and others disappearing. (Incidentally, the 
purple leaflet distributed to the wizard community in HBP reminds me 
chillingly of what's happening in Australia at the moment, with the 
government issuing propaganda publications and telling us to 
be "alert but not alarmed".)

Whether it's a comment on British education I don't know, but I 
suspect not, or at least less than it is on the world in general as 
it is now, with politicians appealing to the worst in people.

Teachers' styles vary. I remember my Year 11 history teacher at 
school, who used to make us sit down one leg at a time, then spend 
entire sessions telling us sternly not to waste time. Despite this, 
I ended up liking her, because once she got started, she told the 
most entertaining stories about modern history, including her own 
memories of travelling in Italy just before WWII and being tempted 
to draw moustache and glasses on giant posters of Mussolini! She 
also warned us not to trust history books without asking what was in 
it for the writer concerned. She just had a weird style. Definitely 
not Umbridge, though!