The Dursleys and discipline (Was: First lesson again)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 168344

Ceridwen wrote:
> Tangent:  I don't think the Dursleys ever bothered even trying to 
explain adults to Harry.  I don't think they explained any possible
reasons for discipline, except, maybe, that *Harry* deserved it.  A 
freak, an oddity, what have you.  Their own actions would definitely
be called into question by any sort of reasonable explanation for
discipline!  Why bother? <snip>

Carol responds:
Sorry to snip the main part of your post, but the whole subject of the
powerlessness of teachers to control bullying or to discipline
obnoxious students (no, I'm not talking about SS/PS Harry; I'm talking
about RL) makes me almost literally sick. I'm afraid that
American--and possibly British--society will pay the penalty for our
laxity in the next ten or twenty years. So I'm not going there. :-)

Regarding the Dursleys and discipline: On the one hand, they want to
stifle Harry's magic so he won't, say, accidentally or deliberately
blow up their house (now where would they get that idea?). On the
other hand, they believe that because he lives under their roof, he
should follow their rules. (I think Vernon says as much somewhere, but
I may be thinking of the films.) The first reason is understandable,
if not fair to Harry; the second is fair enough, or would be, if they
explained their rules and applied them equally to Harry and Dudley.

The Dursleys are like a parody of two extremes of discipline. With
Harry, it's the old "Spare the rod, spoil the child" idea, except that
they rarely actually hit him. (Locking children, or even teenagers, in
their rooms was common in medieval times; I don't know how long the
practice lasted. Even when I was a kid, in the Land Before Time,
bedroom doors could be locked only from the inside.) With Dudley, it's
the new the-child-can-do-no-wrong philosophy, which eliminates
discipline (actually teaching the child a lesson) along with
punishment. We don't even see the "natural consequences" and "logical
consequences" philosophy advocated by social workers and counselors.
Mrs. Dursley is afraid of losing Dudley's love if she disciplines him
(and it's clear that this problem predates finding Harry on her
doorstep; Dudley is already a spoiled brat, kicking his mother and
screaming for sweets, at sixteen months old). Mr. Dursley confuses
bullying with manliness. Dudley is never taught to say "please" or
"thank you" or to show gratitude in any form. It's really a miracle
that *Harry* ever learned those words or felt that emotion. But then,
we're dealing with a fairy tale for the first eleven or so years of
his life.

IMO, the confusion between discipline (teaching) and punishment
continues at Hogwarts. Rule-breaking is punished, but, with the
exception of the reason for not entering the third-floor corridor in
SS/PS ("those who do not wish to die a most painful death"), the rules
are seldom explained, the punishment in most cases does not logically
fit the crime, and the lesson that the detention or point-docking was
supposed to teach is never learned. (Does Harry learn not to sneak out
after dark or lie to a teacher or talk back to Snape? True, he stops
stealing potion ingredients from Snape, but not because of a detention
or point docking.)

Maybe there *is* no right way, in the WW or RL, to teach kids what
they need to know to be responsible adults, but it seems rather naive
and optimistic to rely on their innate decency, as JKR seems to be
doing with Harry (and even, oddly, with Draco, who is learning about
life the hard way in HBP). As for Dudley, if the Muggle business world
is anything like its RL equivalent, he's in for a shock.

Carol, momentarily letting her worries about educational failings in
the RL cloud her view of the HP books