Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 158631

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not sure I'd say that being in the Order makes one 
automatically 
> Dumbledore's client.  

a_svirn:
Call it what you want, but it's not a one-sided deal. Or shouldn't 
be, anyway. The relationships between members of such networks and 
their leaders are reciprocal. If I am giving you my loyal service 
you are supposed to give me your good lordship. Or your patronage, 
if you like this term better. Otherwise, why bother? 

> Betsy Hp:
Are there other patrons within the Order, for 
> example? What about some of the more undercover members? 

a_svirn:
What about them? All members of the Order are undercover, if it 
comes to that. It's a secret organisation. 

> Betsy Hp:
But I think 
> we're trying to find an exactness in something that I personally 
see 
> as pretty foggy.  

a_svirn:
I know the feeling. 


> Betsy Hp:
> Going with the patron-client idea, Sirius is such an independent 
> person that I think, newly freed from his parent's influence, he'd 
> have resisted coming under anybody else's.  So I do think he was a 
> free agent.  

a_svirn:
You can't be a free agent if you are a member of an order. That's a 
contradiction of terms. Order suggests regulation and discipline. 

> Betsy Hp:
Which is why no one spoke for him when he was arrested.

a_svirn:
As Crouch Jr. put it "Convenient, eh?"

> Betsy Hp:
> Also, Dumbledore was obviously convinced of Sirius's guilt (which 
is 
> interesting in and of itself).  He gives evidence that helps put 
> Sirius away, so he doesn't appear to have a reason to feel any 
> lingering loyalty towards a man who appears to have been betraying 
> him for some time.  

a_svirn:
Well, sure, that much is obvious. We need no elaborate comparisons 
with Ancient Rom to state that Dumbledore in Random's words "screwed 
Sirius up". Which he did, patron or no patron. 

> Betsy Hp:
> Since the WW seems to have only the bare minimum of laws, most 
bent 
> towards keeping their world hidden from the muggle world, I take 
it 
> as a given that there isn't any actual law governing the placement 
> of orphaned children.

a_svirn:
I don't see why you take it as a given. I've yet to know about any 
society where family and property rights weren't protected by a 
certain body of rules, more or less formalised. Especially, where 
elite is concerned. (And the Potters definitely belonged to elite. 
As did Sirius). Wizards are different from muggles, naturally, but 
not that different. We know that they have the laws regarding 
inheritance, so I think it logical to assume that they have also the 
laws regarding family and orphans. I imagine there have been quite a 
few wizrding orphans, what with all those wars, rebellions, witch 
hunts etc.  Besides, *appointed guardian* is a legal term. 

> Betsy Hp:
 I think 
> there's a heavy *implication* that power and influence weigh quite 
> heavily in the WW, which would logically give rise to a patron-
> client set up.  And there are things that point to Dumbledore 
being 
> a patron to various characters within the series.  But since we've 
> not got anything saying "yes, this is so", it's hard to decide 
> whether or not that system is legal within the WW. I do think 
there 
> is nothing pointing to it being *illegal*.

a_svirn:
Pharnabazus says in the essay:

"Still, there is one major difference. In Ancient Rome the patron-
client system was a formally recognised part of how government and 
social relations worked. By contrast, the wizarding version is 
entirely unofficial, and grew up in response to the simultaneous 
weakness, corruption and capricious power of the Ministry of Magic – 
the inevitable consequence of that fact that Secrecy always comes 
before Justice."

There you go. The WW has its official institutions. "Unofficial" 
private armies are outside the province of law and therefore 
illegal. 


> Betsy Hp:
> Well, I'm not sure there is all that much distinguishing the good 
> guys from the bad guys.  That's the beauty (and frustration) of 
the 
> series.  

a_svirn:
These patron-client settings make the whole thing considerably less 
beautiful and considerably more frustrating.