The uses of beast fable, was Hagrid the animal abuser

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 166182

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> It is impossible to say whether or not Hagrid is an 
> animal abuser in a real life sense because there are 
> no real animals in HP (even the non-magical ones) , 
> only anthropomorphic cartoon animals.  Real owls are 
> not smart, for instance.
> 
> It's one of my biggest annoyances with HP, but it is 
> a characteristic of most children's literature.  I 
> thought it was dumb even as a child and I've never 
> understood what the point is supposed to be.  Teaching 
> very young children to regard animals as having thoughts 
> and feelings exactly like their own is supposed to 
> encourage empathy, I suppose, but a great many people 
> never evolve beyond it and learn to respect the fact 
> that animals have their own natures which are very 
> different from those of humans.
> 
> As a high school science teacher, I find that 
> anthropomorphic attitudes persist into adolescence 
> and are almost impossible to eradicate. 


Pippin:
I think you've got the cart in front of the horse. Ascribing
agency and mind to animals, not to mention inanimate and
even incorporeal entities such as  sticks or ghosts, occurs
universally across cultures. Children don't have to be taught
this; they learn it as naturally as they learn to speak. That
probably means it's an evolved behavior which helped our
ancestors make up their minds quickly that the rustle in
the bushes might be a hyaena and predict what it might do
next.

By exaggerating the extent to which animals can be like us,
beast fable can actually educate children *away* from this point
of view. I think  Rowling expects readers to realize that Hagrid's
desire to make a pet out of Norbert is absurd and dangerous.
She's satirizing Hagrid's attitude, not promoting it. He's lovable,
but he's not always right. 

After all, he projects his own characteristics onto the kids as
well, expecting them all to share his not only his enthusiasm and 
concern for the animal world, but his insane disregard for its
dangers, much to the Trio's continued dismay. They love him,
they forgive his faults, but they don't ignore them.

I don't think he can entirely be blamed for the Aragog debacle,
however.

I'm sure thirteen year old Hagrid didn't obtain an  acromantula
egg all by himself. I'd bet a certain Slytherin prefect had something
to do with it. I also think if Dumbledore wanted the acromantula
colony removed, it would have been. It turns out their venom is
useful so he may have more reasons that consideration for
Hagrid to tolerate them. 

As for the skrewts, magical breeds hybridize freely, as we can
see by Hagrid's own existence. I doubt that wizards see anything
innately disgusting about it, except for pureblood fanatics like
Umbridge. Since all the TWT obstacles were planned and approved
by the Ministry, we must assume that the skrewt breeding
program was as well. Of course Hagrid wouldn't have been able
to say so, since the objects in the maze were to be a secret.

JKR shows that Hagrid's behavior can be appropriate and helpful 
with Grawp, who despite appearances is no animal. He's
Hagrid's closest relative and might reasonably have a nature which is
similar to his. Canon implies that his violence was a response to
his  environment not his nature.

As for Hedwig  she comes from a magical creatures shop -- she's clearly
not  supposed to be a real owl. I think the movies blur this by often using 
real trained owls to play her part, but JKR is not to blame for that.

Another use of beast fable is to teach children about human
characteristics without frightening them unduly or pointing a finger
at the neighbors. Psychopaths are rare enought that you wouldn't
want your child wondering if everyone he meets might be one. 
OTOH, children do need to be warned that some people who 
might profess to love them are no more capable of it than a snake.

Pippin