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

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 169576

> Betsy Hp:
> I've had the very same worries, lizzyben04.  And I usually look to
> Pippin to pull me back from the depths of despair. (Though she may
> not realize I do so. <g>)  In another thread, Pippin pointed out
this
> quote of JKR's:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169384
> > >>Pippin:
> > Here's what Jo has to say about Hermione:
>
> "Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite
> self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she
> goes through this. She develops her political conscience.
> My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me,
> which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders
> towards the very people she's trying to help. She
> offends them."

lizzyben04:
I hope that this means what we think it means, but JKR might simply
be referring to SPEW - which is referred to in the text as a well-
intentioned, but somewhat patronizing & self-righteous endeavour.
However, we never see any criticism in the text of some of
Hermione's other actions - like jinxing Marietta, or luring
Umbridge, which were actually much more sinister. I guess you could
argue it's there in the subtext, but it certainly isn't in the
text "canon" as Harry perceives things. That's what worries me. He
thinks SPEW is a bit unfair to the elves, but does he ever think
that it's wrong to give Dudley a tail, jinx Marrietta, throw away
Montague, blow up an Aunt, beat up on Draco? Not that we can see.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> Children can be very intolerent of anything or anyone different or
> outside themselves; the "other" for want of a better word.
>
 I've started to think that perhaps JKR is
> exploring this phenomenon and using the Potter series (not in a
> preachy way) to say something about it. Because, IMO, she's got a
lot
> of odd juxtapositions in the books. And I can't help but think JKR
> knows that they're there.
<snip juxtapotion of "others.>

lizzyben04:
Yes, it seems like "others" create their own subgroups of "others"
as well. Harry, Ron & Hermione all face prejudice because of their
own backgrounds, yet they still feel prejudice towards others. This
might be human nature, but is it right? The text certainly says that
it isn't right to be prejudiced against Muggles, or wizard kids, or
poorer families, but when it comes to the Houses, it gets a bit
murkier. Hagrid tells Harry that he SHOULD feel superior to
the "other" House, and that message is repeated in many ways by many
other adults in the series. Harry's finally a Gryfindor "insider",
and he indulges in stereotypes & prejudice towards those that
are "outsiders", despite the fact that he was once an outsider
himself. 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.

> Betsy Hp:
> It disturbs me as well.  But I wonder if it's maybe *supposed* to
be
> disturbing on some level?
>
> It's very convenient, IMO, that Draco is turned into an animal
before
> he's thrown repeatedly to the ground.  One of the first things
> propagandists try to do is remove the humanity of the other side.
> That Draco has his humanity removed in *actuality* suggests, to
me,
> that perhaps JKR knows what she is doing.

lizzyben04:
I hope so, but I'm not sure. Perhaps she is sending a message about
the treatment of the "other" w/these juxtapositions & hypocritical
behavior. But if that message is in the text, it's so subtle that
I'm not sure most children will see it. I care about human rights,
but I enjoyed Draco's "ferret-bouncing" until I caught myself &
thought about the fact that I was laughing at the torture of a
student! Ack! The text NEVER invites us to consider the immorality
of this act - indeed, Moody is praised for it, and Ron makes a joke
about how he always wants to remember that moment. Same thing goes
for Dudley's tail - Hagrid, an authority figure, gives Dudley a
permenent injury, and the reader is invited to laugh it up. He
deserves it, right? 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.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> And with both Montague and Marietta, none of the trio know those
> students.  Not really.  It's easy to deprecate the pain of someone
> you never really see or interact with.  (The same could be said
about
> the trio's view of Crabbe, Goyle, and Malfoy.) The childish
> shortsightedness of the trio allow them to be as ruthless and
unjust
> (to paraphrase Pippin's quote above) as they want to be because
> they're not hurting actual people, they're just hurting
the "other".

lizzyben04:
Too true. In the Harry Potter books, Slytherins are portrayed as the
ultimate "other", and the heros feel as justified in persecuting
Slyherins as the pure-bloods feel in persecuting "mudbloods."
They're not "actual people", after all. The comparisons are totally
disturbing when you stop to think about it. 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"?

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm holding out hope that DH will show the "moral relativism" the
> trio engages in as the problem that I think it is.  Dumbledore
spent
> all of HBP teaching Harry to look at Tom Riddle in a new way; to
see
> the man behind the monster.  At least, it seemed to me that he was
> pleased that Harry was able to dredge up some sympathy for young!
> Tom.  And we also have Harry facing the fact that Draco feels
pain,
> both physical and emotional.  By the end of HBP Harry seems to be
> holding on to that lesson.
>
> Hopefully, Hermione and Ron will learn that lesson as well, and DH
> will end by showing children that just because someone is
different
> or "other", it's really not okay to beat them with sticks.
>
> Or you know, there's always the woodchipper. <bg>

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? After the initial
shock, I didn't see it. Harry still seems to think Draco basically
had it coming & he's just upset about how the detentions will
interfere with Quidditch. I'm hoping that there will be some moment
of "epiphany" for Harry & co., where they realize what their
stereotypes & "moral relativism" have led them to do. Some moment
where they see that their own fear & hatred of "the other" has led
them to adopt some of the same prejudices & cruelty that they're
trying to fight against. So far, though, it hasn't happened.
Personally, I believe that revelation has to come from Snape. SO
much, to me, depends on how Snape is characterized at the end of
this novel. That'll basically determine whether I think these novels
belong in the classics aisle or the wood-chipper.

If it turns out that Harry was wrong about Snape, that could be that
moment of "revelation" that would illustrate the dangers of mindless
hatred, prejudice & fear of "the other". From the beginning, the
trio has sorted Snape into "the other" - as an enemy, dark, less
than human, etc. Harry has felt justified using unforgiveable curses
& immoral means against Snape & co. because "they deserve it." (just
like Sirius said). Harry's become increasingly ruthless, and
increasingly driven by hatred & anger. (This from a hero who's
strength is supposed to be love). I could see him actually using
Crucio against Snape at some point. If it turns out, in the end,
that he's actually been using those immoral means against a friend,
an ally, it would really cause a moment of horror that would
highlight the injustice of using those kinds of means.  It would
also show the dangers of simply "sorting" people as bad & worthless
based on their looks, their house, etc. That moment could serve to
topple the message of "moral relativism" that had been built in the
past books.

But what's the lesson, if Snape really was evil all along? If
Slytherin = "the other", the lesson is just awful. It's "the other"
= EVIL. Never trust "one of them"? That Dumbledore was a fool to
look past appearances, labels & past affinities? That the "others"
really are bad & awful & deserve no compassion? That we can just
instantly, reliably label someone as evil based only on their
party/house/religion/race. UGH. Half the atrocities in this world
are caused because people view "the other" as less human, less
worthy of respect, than they are. If the Harry Potter books actually
reinforce that kind of stereotyping & prejudice, I've got no use for
them.

lizzyben04