[HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 191684

On 3/01/2012 2:59 PM, dumbledore11214 wrote:
>
> Alla:
>
> Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am
> coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I
> certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional
> freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young
> wizards just do not have that right.

Shaun:

But *why* do you disagree? That to me, is an important question here.

If you disagree simply because of your own personal moral code, then 
that is certainly your right. But do you have the right to impose your 
moral code on others - and particularly in this case, do you have the 
right to impose your personal moral code on Harry Potter and Severus 
Snape? I know they are fictional characters, but if they weren't, 
wouldn't they have as much right as you do to decide for themselves what 
they believed to be morally and ethically correct?

And, if they do have that right, how do you judge Severus Snape if he 
was doing what he truly believed was in the best interest of his 
society, his school, and, yes, indeed, even of Harry Potter himself? 
Which I actually do believe he may well have done. Snape certainly does 
not like Harry, but he has reasons why he does not like Harry, and 
primary among these seems to be that he sees Harry as having very 
similar characteristics to James that Snape views as negative 
characteristics. And, to be honest, it seems that even James friends 
agree that James had these negative characteristics and that they were 
negatives. He is also, as we know, sworn to protect Harry, to keep him 
safe and it does seem that this an overriding concern of his. And it's 
not only important for Harry's own sake that he is kept safe - but for 
the entire society's sake. I believe it is reasonable to suppose that 
Snape was acting in Harry's best interests over the *serious* things 
even if he wasn't over less significant things. And if he was acting in 
Harry's best interests, and if what he did served to keep Harry safer 
than if he hadn't done it, then than to me is a morally defensible position.

Being a good teacher sometimes means being mean - at least from the 
perspective of the student. Your duty is to teach your students, help 
them to become better people, and to keep them safe and protect them if 
you can. There's nothing wrong with being nice to them as well if it 
doesn't compromise the other things - but there's a lot wrong if being 
nice to them is ever more important than those other things.

Gilderoy Lockhart comes to mind as an example of a teacher who 
concentrates more on trying to seem good than actually being good. 
Slughorn, to an extent as well, although he actually does seem to be 
competent unlike Lockhart.

Alla:

> The most obvious example is of
> course Occlumency lessons where more or less expressly Harry agrees to
> participate.Do you think Snape would have done it anyway if Harry would
> have screamed no, no, no? I mean, I would not put it past him, but I am
> not absolutely sure.

Shaun:

Again, from a teacher's perspective, I don't think it can really be said 
Harry agrees to participate in the Occlumency lessons.

 From 'Order of the Phoenix':

"Snape's lip curled in triumph as he turned to Harry.

'The Headmaster has sent me to tell you, Potter, that it is his wish for 
you to study Occulmency this term.'

'Study what?' said Harry blankly.

Snape's sneer became more pronounced.

'Occlumency, Potter. The magical defence of the mind against external 
penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one.'

Harry's heart began to pump very fast indeed. Defence against external 
penetration? But he was not being possessed, they had all agreed on that...

'Why do I have to study Occlu- thing?' he blurted out.

'Because the Headmaster thinks it is a good idea,' said Snape smoothly. 
'You will receive private lessons once a week, but you will not tell 
anybody what you are doing, least of all Dolores Umbridge. You understand?'

'Yes,' said Harry. 'Who's going to be teaching me?'

Snape raised an eyebrow.

'I am,' he said.

Harry had the horrible sensation that his insides were melting. Extra 
lessons with Snape - what on earth had he done to deserve this?"

*****

I don't see any sign in that that Harry is really given any choice as to 
whether or not he has these lessons. He is told by one of his teachers 
that the Headmaster wants him to do these lessons. He's not asked. He's 
told.

Now, sure, at fifteen, Harry is probably *capable* of refusing to 
participate in a lesson. But that doesn't really mean he has agreed to 
do it, simply because he doesn't throw a temper tantrum and refuse, or 
because he doesn't turn up, or because he does turn up and turns on the 
sullen insolence mode. He has been told by people who have a right to 
tell him what to do what they require him to do. He could refuse in the 
way that my students sometimes refuse to do homework, but that doesn't 
mean he was ever really given a choice.

Would Snape have forced him if he had refused? I don't know. But then 
again, if a student refuses to do their homework, I don't always try and 
force them either. Sometimes it isn't worth that type of battle for 
various reasons, but that doesn't mean I ever regarded the instructions 
I gave them as optional.

Alla:

 > Now you claim that all the other occassions you
> quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially
> number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are
> justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does
> not really matter.

Shaun:

First of all, I find it interesting that it's example seven that you 
think is hardest to justify as from my perspective that one is probably 
among the easiest to justify. Harry has snuck into Hogsmeade after being 
expressly forbidden to do so by his Head of House, because he doesn't 
have a permission letter. It's absolute rule breaking - even if there 
wasn't any good reason for it - and there is a good reason - they are 
trying to protect Harry from somebody they believe to be a highly 
dangerous mass murderer. Remember that later in the chapter, Remus Lupin 
really rips into Harry for what he's done. He scolds Harry severely for 
it, even invoking the memory of the sacrifice of Harry's parents - and 
he confiscates the Marauder's Map. To me, it really seems the clearest 
cut case. Both rule breaking and serious danger.

Alla:

> Yeah, schools here allow teachers to search students
> and do some other stuff due to issue of safety. Some of it I consider
> completely justified and some crazy and over the top and applaud the
> parents who take it to court. But we are not talking about any of this
> stuff, right? We are talking about the stuff which to me is ten times
> more invasive than rights to search students, we are talking about
> reading *everything* that is in their mind.

Shaun:

No, we're not. Legilemency is definitely not presented as the ability to 
read everything in somebody's mind.

"'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be 
opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the 
inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex 
and many-layered thing, Potter - or at least most minds are.' He 
smirked. 'It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency 
are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their 
victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for 
instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him.'"
- Snape in Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 24.

Even Lord Voldemort doesn't seem to be able to read everything in 
somebody's mind. The Dark Lord himself is able to work out if a person 
is lying. The reason that the Order of the Phoenix is worried about 
Harry is because they fear that "at times, when your mind is most 
relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep for instance - you are 
sharing the Dark Lord's thoughts and emotions," because "(T)he curse 
that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection 
between you and the Dark Lord."

Legilimency is not mind-reading. It's far less precise than that and far 
less invasive than that. It is only a major concern in Harry's case 
because of the specific link between him and Voldemort which is feared 
to allow much greater access than normal.

What does Snape get when Harry "let me get in too far. You lost 
control." Harry asks him if he saw everything I saw, and Snape says 
"Flashes of it."

I think you may have developed an impression of legilemency that goes 
far beyond what it is actually described as being able to do. It is not 
even presented as being close to being able to read everything in a 
persons mind. You get flashes of what the other person is thinking. If 
they are lying, it seems somebody who is really good at it, can 
interpret those flashes to work out you are lying. That's all.

If I believed Legilimency allowed you to see everything a person was 
thinking, I might view it differently, but even then I'm not sure I 
would in cases where I believed a student was actually in danger. Just 
breaking a minor rule - maybe. Putting himself at risk of murder by one 
of the most dangerous criminals in history? I think I'd still see it as 
something I had to do.

Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's 
mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people 
are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way 
out of it?

Alla:

> I repeat, everything that is
> in their minds, stuff that has no relation to the issue of their safety.
> While Snape protected himself from Harry's reading his most shameful
> memories, Harry could never do that - no pensive for him. Sure, there is
> some evidence that Snape does not have to read every thought in Harry's
> mind, but my point is that he can.

Shaun:

As I say, I don't believe he can and I believe the evidence in canon is 
very much that he cannot. You seem to be able to get flashes of 
memories. That's it.

As for Snape being able to protect himself while Harry can't - I'm 
allowed to search students. They are not allowed to search me. 
Personally, if it was possible, I would have liked Harry to have had use 
of a pensieve to shield any memories he really wanted to keep secret. 
But we don't know how common pensieves are (Snape seems to use the same 
one as Dumbledore meaning we really know of only one of them), and we 
also don't know if Harry would even have the skills to remove and 
replace his own memories - it may be well beyond his skills.

Alla:

> If that would have happened in real life, well,as a teacher who may have
> read your student's mind you may have been justified in it, you may have
> not, but you bet I would have had a huge issue with that.

Shaun:

The thing is, it's also not just a matter of being justified. It can be 
a matter of actually being *required* to do it.

If I believe a student is carrying something dangerous, I am not just 
allowed to search him. I am actually required to do so in most cases 
(the only real exception is that I am not required to place myself in 
danger to do so). If you are in loco parentis, you are not *allowed* to 
let a student put themselves or others in serious danger if there is 
anything in your power you can do to protect them. You only have to act 
to the extent that is reasonable - if I think a kid has a laser pointer, 
for example, I might ask him to turn out his pockets. If I thought he 
had a gun, I'd physically search him. Would some people have an issue 
with that? Sure. Guess what. I'm not allowed to worry about that.

I know of a case where a male teacher wasn't just sacked but was 
stripped of teacher registration so he can never teach again because he 
did not search a female student on the grounds that he did not feel it 
was appropriate. Sorry. It's irrelevant what you feel about it. It's the 
circumstances that tell you what you need to do.

Snape is a teacher in an unusually dangerous school environment. With 
Harry, he is dealing with a student who is in unusual danger both in 
general, and sometimes in specific danger because of the things he 
decides to do. I think he'd be negligent if he didn't try to work out 
when Harry is lying to him - which, honestly, seems to me to be the 
thing he most often uses Legilemency for. I've seen no signs that he's 
ever got more information out of Harry than that except in the 
Occlumency lessons where Harry is very well aware of what he is doing.

Is Snape even free not to use Legilemency? I know we don't know if he is 
or not, but I can say that if such a thing existed in the real world, I 
think I would be required to legally use it if I had the ability whether 
I wanted to or not, if that would enhance my students safety. Only then 
- not just because I wanted to.

Alla:

> Obviously we are constrained by the fact that "mind reading" is a
> fictional constraint, however I think there is a reason that in so many
> scifi books that I have read (the first that comes to mind is "The
> demolished man" by Alfred Bester) ordinary citizens are awarded
> humongous protections against the fact that the group of people can read
> their minds.

Shaun:

Ah, somebody else who has read Bester (I have 'The Stars, My 
Destination' sitting ready for a reread this month). The thing is, 
legilemency is not presented as being anywhere near as common as the 
abilities of Peepers in 'The Demolished Man' nor is it specifically 
being used in a law enforcement context which is the reason why the 
constraints that exist in that novel are developed. But more 
significantly, we don't what rules exist in Wizarding society to govern 
Legilimency. For all we know there may actually be, generally speaking, 
very strict rules on its use.

But, even if there are, do they apply when it comes to Snape and Harry? 
If Snape is in loco parentis, with the same rights, powers, and 
responsibility over Harry as a parent (and even if the Wizarding World 
doesn't have quite the same doctrine, I hope it has something like it, 
otherwise we have hundreds of children spending most of the year living 
in an environment where no adult has proper responsibility for making 
sure they are safe), any rules that normally apply may not apply in his 
case. A random person from the street can't make a child strip so they 
can examine their body for injuries. A parent or someone in the place of 
a parent can - and indeed, may be negligent if they *don't* sometimes.

Alla:

> I think it tells me that writers understood how invasive
> and violating it has the potential to be. In this book for example,
> police officers who can read minds cannot use that evidence in court,
> they have to obtain the evidence the hard way - do the work and all that.

Shaun:

But they do use their telepathy to identify the suspect and then go 
looking for the evidence they need.

And in fact, that seems quite relevant here:

"'I suggest, Headmaster, that Potter is not being entirely truthful,' he 
said. 'It might be a good idea if he were deprived of certain privileges 
until he is ready to tell us the whole story. I personally feel he 
should be taken off the Gryffindor Quidditch team until he is ready to 
be honest.'

'Really, Severus,' said Professor McGonagall sharply, "I see no reason 
to stop the boy playing Quidditch. This cat wasn't hit over the head 
with a broomstick. There is no evidence at all that Potter has done 
anything wrong.'

Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling light-blue 
gaze made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed.

'Innocent until proven guilty, Severus,' he said firmly."
(Chamber of Secrets, Chapter Nine)

It seems likely that both Dumbledore ha used Legilemency on Harry (who 
is lying and not telling the whole story as Snape says) here, and Snape 
may well have done so as well. And both of them may know very well that 
Harry is lying (but certainly don't seem to know Harry heard the 
basilisk), but knowing isn't enough. Evidence is needed.

Snape *never* seems to punish Harry for the things he thinks Harry has 
done where he seems to have used Legilemency.

Alla:

> To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not
> care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety.

Shaun:

"'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be 
opened at will and examined at leisure.

It's not mind reading. Even if it was, I would disagree with you. 
Preserving a child's safety often trumps preserving a child's privacy.

Alla:

> Nor am I sure that it is spelled out that WW kids cannot consent to that
> (see above example about the lessons). I do not believe that Severus
> Snape would have stopped at that and *of course* I do not consider mind
> intrusion *after* the fact to try to find the evidence to *punish* the
> child justified. Go look for an evidence old fashioned way Snape, but of
> course Lupin smacks him in the face with taking the map away from him,
> so he cant really do that.

Shaun:

I would want to see some evidence that children in the Wizarding World 
can consent to things in a way children in the real world can't, and 
historically were even less limited in what they were able to do. I can 
only see evidence they don't have that right until they are 17.

And I can also see no example where Snape punished Harry based on 
legilemency. Snape was examining the map looking for actual evidence 
when Lupin took possession of it, in fact.

Alla:

> Hopefully my position is clear too.

Shaun:

It is, and it's a reasonable position. It's just not my position.

One interesting question I haven't yet asked so I'll stick it in here - 
does Harry feel he's been violated? The only time I can see any sign he 
might is with his memory of Cho - and he seems to block that.

Harry doesn't seem to me to feel he's being violated or invaded in an 
unreasonable way. Despite the fact it's being done by a man he hates.

In fact, in extremis, in Umbridge's office, he attempts to get Snape to 
do it so he can send him a message. I know he's desperate but there's no 
real sign he's found it traumatic.

Shaun