On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues)

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 169782

> > lizzyben04:
> <BIG SNIP>
>  Right now, the text seems to say that they SHOULD be
> > prejudiced against the other house, because the "others" are all
> > less worthy. That bugs.
>
>
> Alla:
>
> That is of course if one characterises this as prejudice, because
> IMO the dislike of evil is not prejudice, but well deserved
dislike
> of evil.
>
> Slytherin house purebloods are better than anybody else ideology
is
> IMO evil ideology, and unless JKR pulls the rug and portrays
> Slytherins as misunderstood sweeties, I do not see at all what is
so
> prejudicial about disliking what they stood for.
>
> I said many times, I can totally see Houses uniting at the end and
> doubt that JKR promotes the idea that every single child sorted in
> Slytherin is evil, totally ridiculous IMO.
>
> But I do think that this ideology will be abandoned by leaders of
> Slytherin house, whoever they will be at least - healing and all
> that before unity comes. IMO.
>

Well, first of all, even if you accept the contention that Slytherin
= evil, Harry & co. are not only prejudiced against that House. They
truly do believe that Gryfindors ROCK, & feel free to hiss & boo
Hufflepuffs & Ravenclaws when required. Harry thinks of the other
houses as basically irrelevant, & basically ignores them. Or else he
will have some stock stereotyped opinion on them (hufflepuffs =
losers). He's been there 6 years, but he still apparantly hasn't
bothered to learn the names, or recognize the faces, of 3/4 of his
class. They're just a faceless horde to him, not "actual people" at
all. The only "actual people", as in, people that matter, are his
own house. That's cliquish in the extreme, as it does make it seem
like Harry thinks that his House is *better* than others. And why
wouldn't he, since all his authority figures keep telling him that?

Second, I don't accept the contention that Slytherin=evil. I think
that's Harry's stereotype, which readers have adopted as well.
Go with me here, though I know this is a subversive reading. Harry
*is* bigoted & prejudiced against Slytherins. With Harry, we're
basically placed in the mind of a bigot - he truly believes that
none of "them" have any worth, that "they" are all evil, immoral,
less worthy, even less human. He would have no problem, say, denying
a job to a Slytherin, excluding them, or treating them badly because
of their House. Heck, Harry & co. might not have a problem expelling
or rounding up all Slytherins, cause they're all bad, right? Harry
doesn't look at people as individuals, but judges them, instantly,
based on a label. That's what bigotry is all about. Now, you can
argue that Slytherins deserve it, etc. but Harry is bigoted against
them in that he can't see them as "actual people".

He's assumed that Slytherins all share the exact same beliefs, etc.
w/o seeing them as individual human beings. For example, Harry
thinks that all Slytherins believe in pure-bloodism, but that's not
necesarilly the case. Snape, for example, is a half-blood & doesn't
seem to show any prejudice as an adult. Slughorn accepts "Muggle"
students into his class & his club. He's based that on his
interactions w/only 3 Slytherins: Draco, Crape & Goyle, who are all
the sons of DE, so
presumably share the extreme DE view. However, even Draco seems to
waver from those beliefs & warns Hermione of danger. As for the
other Slytherins, well, Harry doesn't talk to them, so who knows
what they think? He's never bothered to find out, but went to the
snap judgment instead, based on a stereotype.

You can believe that Slytherins are evil & dominating, justifying
Harry's treatment. But there's a split in the text between the way
Houses are characterized, and how they're actually treated. At
Hogwarts, Slytherins are not a "dominant group" at all, but are
instead part of a hated, mistrusted minority group. They're
disliked by 3/4 of the school, taunted, bullied by Fred & George,
slighted by DD & other teachers, booed by other students. Within
Hogwarts society, Slytherins are at the bottom of the barrel, and
they know it. Harry's actually the one in the "majority," dominant
group within Hogwarts. HP & Hermione may decry the mistreatment of
minority groups (elves, giants), but they never stop to think about
how they themselves have stereotyped & dehumanized another group.
Quite ironic in it's own way. The anti-bigots are bigoted
themselves, & the anti-classists have created their own class system
w/Griffyndors on top.

So, here's where the text conflicts for me. Harry & cos. treatment
of Slytherins is actually pretty consistent with how "majority"
groups treat other "minorities" in society. The minority group
represents "the other", and is distrusted, stereotyped & dehumanized
by the rest of society. In Harry & co.'s attitude, we can see how
bigotry leads society to do horrible things to minority groups.
Harry & co, at this point, would be fine with disposing of all
Slytherins as a group, because they can no longer see them as
individuals. And because the "other" is seen as evil, wrong, less
human, anything the majority group does to this minority group is
seen as totally OK & justified. With Harry Potter, the reader gets a
chance to see the world through the eyes of a bigoted person, and
actually share that bigotry - in a way that would never happen if
JKR attempted to stereotype or dehumanize an actual minority group.
That's why I say that either JKR is doing a brilliant examination of
bigotry & stereotypes, or she's indulging in it.

>
> lizzyben04:
> <SNIP>
> I hate Umbridge, but the trio basically
> > abandoned her to die in the forest, and then laughed at her
mental
> > trauma. If you stop for a second, you're horrified by some of
these
> > things, but the text never seems to want us to stop & evaluate
the
> > morality of these actions. So many times, injuries & humiliations
> > of "the bad guys" are simply played for laughs. Is JKR making an
> > ironic commentary on how we lessen the humanity of "others", or
is
> > she actually DOING IT? I'm starting to wonder.
>
> Alla:
>
> maybe she just enjoys her fictional villains getting her dues? I
do
> think it is very telling that she said that Umbridge is still
around
> because it is fun to torture her.
>

That quote isn't very reassuring to me. "Fun to torture her?" Ugh.
IMO, "fun" and "physical torture" should never be in the same
sentence. That quote suggests that JKR does think it's totally funny
when people get tortured, physically harmed, or humiliated - as long
as they're a "bad guy", of course. And in the series, "bad guy"
seems to include everyone who Harry doesn't like. Umbridge is a
horrible person, but I don't think that means that she should be
tortured, assaulted, or whatever happened there. Whatever it was,
she nearly died, & seems to have PTSD, while the heroes laugh it up.
I just thought that scene was twisted. It seems to highlight an
undercurrent of nastiness & cruelty that runs throughout the novels.

I assume that we'd all agree that nobody, even a "bad person",
should be tortured or murdered. That we should act to save someone,
even someone we dislike, who is being physically harmed or is in
danger of death. That's what I mean by a basic moral standard. Yet
there are very few characters in the Potterverse who actually live
up to this minimal standard. The only ones who try to save their
enemies are Harry, Dumbledore & (oddly) Snape. For everyone else, if
they don't like someone, they'll feel totally justifed in hurting
that person or leaving that person to die. Sirius lures Snape to
death by werewolf, Hermione lures Umbridge to death by centaur,
Sirius breaks Ron's leg, Harry nearly kills Draco, etc. And these
are the heros! It's interesting to note that almost every time, that
person is eventually recovered & rescued by Snape. That's why I do
like the guy - he doesn't distinguish, but will try to save enemies
& allies alike. It's a very different code than that of most other
characters.

>
> > lizzyben04:
> <SNIP>
>  And it reminds me a bit
> > of the moral relativism we see in our own political world, where
we
> > can feel justified using torture or immoral practices against
> > someone because, after all, they're the "bad guys." Just ugh.
What
> > kind of lesson is that? If that's not ever changed in these
novels,
> > if Harry & co. don't learn the dangers of that kind of black &
> white
> > thinking, what is the moral message? "It's OK when we do it"?
>
> Alla:
>
> Sure, agreed about RW, think that Potterverse employs a bit
> different standards though. How many times in RL we think that
evil
> escaped punishment again? See, if you do not perseive Slytherin
> purebloodism as real evil, my analogy is meaningless, but since I
> do, I think it works.
>

I can't do that. Because basically, everyone feels justified in what
they do. The Death Eaters even felt justified, because they thought
that the Muggles deserved it, after all. Simply thinking that a
person is "wrong" or "evil", and therefore deserves mistreatment,
does not make that mistreatment moral or right. Yeah, I get that
Harry & co. think Slytherin ideology is bad, but that doesn't give
them a right to use torture, inhumane treatment, or murder - any
more than the DE's have a right to kill people that they disagree
with. If you start believing that you have a "right" to torture
people cause you assume that they're bad, based upon a label, that's
the path of Abu Ghraib. No thanks.

And I'm hoping against hope that JKR isn't promoting the message
that Slytherin = evil, because that goes against everything she's
said about the importance of choices. So, it's all about
your choices - unless, when you're eleven years old, a singing hat
chooses *for you* & slots you into a house where you are destined to
be EEEVVVILL. So much for free will. So much for individuality.
Sytherin= evil & that's that. Why should anyone try to reach out to,
or understand a Slytherin?

I realize that these novels are fiction, but they do have a message
nonethelss. And right now, that message seems to be that you can
divide the world into "us" & "them", and feel free to
mistreat "them".

>
> > lizzyben04:
> > I'm hoping against hope that this is true, as well. But so far,
the
> > hints in that direction have been very subtle. Did Harry really
> feel
> > bad about his attack (almost murder!) of Draco?
> <SNIP>
>
> Alla:
>
> Um, another intepretation of Harry's **attack, almost murder of
> Draco** is Harry defending himself from Draco.
>

Nah, even Harry himself doesn't try this argument. He's shocked &
horrified by what he did, and doesn't even try to claim it was
justified self-defense (though Ginny does, another reason I don't
like her very much). He realizes that his hate has led him almost to
murder. This moment, IMO, is one that gives Harry a moment of
clarity. He does see, for a while, that extreme measures aren't
justified, even against someone you hate. For a moment, he can see
Draco, and Snape, as human beings rather than stereotypes. But the
fog takes over again, & he dismisses the evil of his actions to
whine about the detentions instead. This scene gives me hope, cause
I do think that JKR is pointing to the dangers of where stereotypes
& dehumanization can lead.

lizzyben04