Notification of prejudices

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191529



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote:
>
> Dear Steve
> 
> But then how do you then affirm the legitimacy of the "sorting hat?" ...
> 

Steve:

Once again, you are taking it a step too far. Whether one follows a given mythology is independent of whether one has those mythological characteristics. 

Take Neville, sorted into Gryffindor, and yet he is convinced he is the least brave of anyone he knows. But, in time he grows to believe the Gryffindor myth, and adopts bravery in himself. 

Keep in mind, if Neville had never been tested, he would have spent his life assuming the Sorting Hat made a mistake. 

So, two things are happening. Yes, the Sorting Hat sees bravery in Neville, but remember the Hat also saw bravery in Peter Pettigrew. Did that bravery ever manifest itself, even though the opportunity was given? No, not in conventional ways. But in Neville the bravery seen by the Hat does manifest itself. 

So, the existance of a characteristic, is independent of whether that characteristic is re-enforced and fostered by the myths and legends, or whether it ever truly appears. By following the myths properly, and not so brave person can be made braver, and a unknowingly brave person can bring his bravery out. 

But whether you buy into the myth is very different than whether the characteristic portrayed in the myth is present in you or not. Neville was able to prove his bravery because circumstances presented themselves in a way that forced him. Peter Pettigrew was presented with the same circumstances and his bravery failed him.

Without the test of circumstances, one Gryffindor might portray himself as brave in his own myth, yet, never have to prove it. It is possible, despite seeing himself as brave, when the cards are down, he would fold. 

My point is, buying into and living the myth is independent of whether you have the characteristic portrayed in the myth. That is, what the Sorting Hat does or does not see, is no guarantee that that characteristic will have a chance to present itself in a positive way. 

And again, I'm not using the term Myth and Mythology to mean fanciful stories you tell children at bed time. The myth I speak of, in the context I am speaking of them, may very well be historically true. There is nothing false about the way mythology shapes us, or fails to shape us.   


> ...
> 
> OK, but so what! That's true of any institution, any class any idea or ideal. The problem is the individual action corresponding to the institutional "myth" as you call it.
> 

Steve continues:

I'm making a comment relative to your reference of Clone Soldier who are endlessly and unfailingly obedient relative to Hufflepuff. Endlessly and unfailingly obedient is not a good thing. Even among the most obedient soldier, he/she must be able to set aside obedience in the name of moral right. "I was just following orders" is no defense when it comes to war crimes. 

This is relevant because I see it happening in Slytherin, they have become caught up in their own twisted version of their mythology that they are willing to do unconscionable things. But, beyond a certain point, some Slytherins allow the concept of moral right to override their ingrained mythology, and in the end, make the right decision. 


> You say "There is nothing wrong with the basic characteristics of Slytherin. They are positive and productive archetypes in all societies."
> 
> Please enumerate the positive basic characteristics. Please remember you will be speaking here of absolutes ....
> 

Steve Continues:

Slytherins are Cunning, Resourceful, and Ambitious, these are characteristics the world needs. Slytherin tend to be business men and entrepreneurs, and further tend to be successful, though certainly not down to the last man. Along with cunning, resourcefulness, and ambition, you need to be intelligent too. Crabbe and Goyle would not do well without help, no matter how cunning they are. 


> 
> ...
> 
> 
> You say "The characteristics of each House represent the mythology of that House. ... These are the stories that shape the people who hear them. But these are also the stories that can be twist to bad ends. ... the question is can you see the larger overriding legend in each set of myths, ... when the greater moral good calls for it?"
> 
> Be careful here! You are undermining your own argument. I could easily argue that Slytherin when the times got tough simply bugged out which proves the lack of positive attributes. ...
> 

Steve continues:

I don't think so. We see two examples in the books who did not see themselves as brave despite being sorted into Gryffindor. When the chips were down, Neville who saw himself as a coward, acquitted himself with distinction. He displayed morally courageous bravery. 

Peter Pettigrew, who also did not see himself as brave, when the chips were down, responded with cowardly bravery. He chose selfish bravery, but his actions did require a type of courage, just not a very morally sound type of courage. 

Neville believed the myths and was determined to live up to them. Peter did not believe the myths, and was determined that he could not live up to them. 

As to Slytherin, though JKR did not make it clear in the books, much to everyone's disappointment, she did say that Slytherins returned to fight against Voldemort. SOME of the Slytherins who left were simply playing their cards close to the chest. They were protecting themselves by choosing the most advantageous time and place to fight. Unlike Gryffindor who tends to go charging in, Slytherins are play a more subtle game, and as mentioned choosing the time and place in which to fight that gives them the strongest advantage on many diverse fronts. Yet, is seems that fight they did. Though again, not to the last man. 

Slytherin are playing a game of strategy, Gryffindor are playing a game of charge in and damn the consequences, which looks really cool when it works, but tends to get a lot of people killed. Are Slytherin playing the odds, and shifting the game to their best advantage, certainly they are, but none the less, they saw the writing on the wall, and fought against Voldemort.

I've always said that there must have been some Slytherins who saw Voldemort as a total economic disaster. If you wanted to get rich in the wizard world, then unless you were among the elite, that was not going to be easy. So, I assume many were against Voldemort because with Voldemort in charge, it would have been an economic disaster, especially if Voldemort tried to expand his empire beyond the UK. Perpetual war and economic ruin; not the best circumstances for an ambitious Slytherin. 

Some Slytherins might make selfish choices, but that doesn't mean those choices can't also be morally right. 

Steve/bboyminn