[HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 191705

On 4/01/2012 12:12 AM, 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?
>
> Alla:
>
> Yes, I believe I do, and I do not see why this seems to be such strange
> argument.

Shaun:

Because it doesn't seem to value other people's opinions. I have the 
right to decide for myself whether or not I'm being oppressed, for 
example. If I am comfortable living within particular rules in my 
society (say a rule that says I can't cut my hair, which is a rule some 
cultures have for males), or that I must wear a particular item of 
clothing, or that I must work on one particular day a week, or that I 
must pay my Church a certain amount of my money each week, or any one of 
hundreds of other potential rules that may exist in a particular 
society, I believe I have the right to expect you to respect my choices 
and not try and force me to accept yours as being more important than my 
own. I do not believe you have the right to impose your personal moral 
codes on me or my society when I and my society are happy with those codes.

That last point is important - sometimes a society's rules are unjust 
and unfair and the people living with that society (or at least some of 
them) believe them to be so. In that situation, helping the people in 
that society to change their society in a way that *they* want to change 
it because you agree with them is fine. But the decision to make the 
changes is one that should come from within the society itself.

*If* there were signs that the Wizarding World had a major problem with 
the way Legilemency was being used, by all means I'd want to see changes 
and controls. But I can't see any evidence that this is considered an 
important issue in Wizarding society. *If* there were signs that Harry 
Potter felt he'd suffered some significant personal violation because 
he'd been subjected to Legilemency by Snape, then I'd certainly 
understand thinking this was an important issue that needed to be 
addressed as a matter of justice. But to me, it looks very much like the 
existence of Legilemency is treated as a 'non-issue' in Wizarding 
society. People do not seem to care that much that some people have 
these powers.  Harry does not react to the idea that Snape has some 
ability to read his mind with horror or disgust or terror or fear.

Alla:

> As I mentioned to Pippin, I am most certainly judging WW from
> the position of outsider but also because I believe the book hints that
> a lot of moral and legal norms in WW are changing and need to be changing.

Shaun:

I agree that there are some moral and legal norms in the Wizarding World 
that are changing and some that need to change. *But* I also believe 
that the ones that *need* to be changed are the ones that are clearly 
presented to us as facing opposition by people within the society.

For example, the status of centaurs (and others) as having less rights 
that human wizards. Being creatures of 'near Human intelligence'. It is 
very clear that the centaurs do have a problem with this. Would I 
support the centaurs in changing this? Absolutely. Because they have 
decided for themselves that they want the change. Self determination.

With house-elves, it's clear that many, many house-elves think the 
current status quo where they are virtually slaves in something they 
want to continue. Do I believe slavery is wrong? Absolutely - but if the 
house-elves themselves do not agree, then I don't believe it's my right 
to impose my views on them. Now there are exceptions to this rule like 
Dobby who is happy to be a free-elf, and again, I would support the 
right of any elf to be free, if they choose to. But they also must have 
the right to make the other choice - the choice I do not agree with - 
otherwise it isn't a choice, just a new form of slavery. You must do 
what I say and not what you want to do because I know better than you.

Back to legilemency - show me signs that the Wizarding World has a 
problem with this, and I'd support changes. But all I can see is a sign 
that it is generally accepted that some people have these powers.

Alla:

> When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the
> position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting?

Shaun:

Yes, I did. But there's a couple of differences there. The first is that 
Orwell *specifically* wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as a critique of 
society - JKR does criticise some aspects of the Wizarding World in her 
books, but that isn't their primary purpose in my view. But more 
significantly, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the whole point of the story is 
that we see the world through the eyes of Winston Smith as he personally 
comes to identify the problems in his society. We know there are people 
in the society who disagree with the way it is functioning.

And we are also shown at the end that the people in that society do 
*not* have free will. That they can be broken. That they can be 
brainwashed. But I don't see that as being true of the Wizarding World 
at all. We see that Wizards *are* capable of resistance when they face a 
foe that they believe needs to be resisted - Lord Voldemort and his 
puppet ministry. We know that these people will fight and die to change 
their society when they believe that is necessary.

Alla:

> Surely
> as I gave example above when you are reading a book where people rape
> each other left and right and are very happy doing so and it is
> perfectly acceptable, you would at least question how good the societal
> order in that fictional society is?

Shaun:

If I believed that the people weren't free to make that choice, I would. 
But if they were free to make that choice, I'd have to conclude that the 
book was either very badly written and nonsense (assuming the author 
couldn't convince me that he or she had come up with a consistent world) 
or that the author is some sort of genius (if they could).

Alla:

> To go back to Potterverse, I take it you dont agree with the way Sirius
> Black's case was handled despite most of Wizarding Society was fine and
> dandy with it? Same way as I am not okay with the way Snape and
> Dumbledore use legilimency on Harry.

Shaun:

No, I'm not. Primarily because Sirius himself makes it clear that he 
didn't get a trial and when he does so, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all 
make it clear that they believe this was wrong. Sirius also describes in 
quite a lot of detail, the terror and fear that existed at that time and 
how it lead to the Wizarding World doing things in a way it didn't 
normally do them. He also makes it clear that while Barty Crouch had 
some supporters, there wasn't universal support for his methods.

People within the society itself objected to what was going on. You say 
'most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it.' Were they?  Even 
Sirius doesn't say it was most - just plenty and a lot.

> Alla:
>
> Yes, but I do not have to agree with that. Harry had every right to
> decide for himself that he forgave Dumbledore and Snape. I think he is a
> Saint for doing so and dont agree with him.

Shaun:

See, this is where I think we have a disconnect. I don't believe Harry 
ever forgave Dumbledore or Snape about anything major. I don't see any 
sign that he believes that either of them did anything dramatically 
wrong that needs forgiving. Harry *believed* Snape to have done some 
wrong things but he turns out to have been mistaken in most of those 
beliefs once he knows the truth. He believes Dumbledore made some 
mistakes (particularly in how much he told him at times) but overall 
Harry believes Dumbledore to have acted correctly. Harry *isn't* a saint 
(not for that, anyway - I view his final confontation with Voldemort 
where he tries to get Voldemort to show some remorse as the only thing 
that will give him any chance of recovering anything of value as an act 
of great humanity), he just doesn't see them as having done much wrong 
in the first place.

You seem to me to be in a bit of a circular situation. You believe Snape 
to be 'evil' (for want of a better word) and that predisposes you to 
seeing everything he does in the worst possible light, and because of 
that, it becomes further evidence that Snape is evil...

I'm not saying I'm not doing a similar thing. I am, to an extent, 
deliberately trying to look at Snape's actions in the best possible 
light. I look at what he does and try to see if I can come up with what 
I consider to be a reasonable explanation for what he's doing. Am I 
saying my interpretations are always correct? No. I'm deliberately 
trying not to say that. I am not saying Snape is a man who does 
everything for the best of reasons and that he's an ideal teacher when I 
point out that from a teacher's perspective I think a particular thing 
he does can be justified. I am just saying that this is a *possible* 
interpretation. But I believe in two important concepts here - the 
benefit of the doubt, and that a person is innocent until *proven* 
guilty. So if there is a possible 'good' interpretation, that's the one 
that I think should be considered the explanation unless somebody can 
present some real evidence to disprove it, or to doubt it.

We shouldn't assume guilt or ill intent when an alternative explanation 
exists.

> Alla:
>
> I am leaving this quote in, because I want to apologize. When somebody
> starts to quote extensively, I feel that I ought to as well, but I do
> not have time and/or desire to quote OOP, since most of the book makes
> me really really angry. Also I am typing it before leaving for work, so
> please forgive me. I trust you will take my word for it that when/if you
> will bring the quote I forgot and which will contradict something from
> my argument, I will tell you so and concede stuff.

Shaun:

Of course, I will take your word for it. And I can certainly understand 
both a lack of time to type (I'm using less quotes myself today for that 
reason) or desire to do so. I do this when I can, because *for me*, 
putting down the quote is an important part of my thinking process. Not 
everyone finds that necessary or desirable.

Alla:

> So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier
> argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no?

Shaun:

Yes, to an extent, I did, but on further consideration, I think it's 
more accurate to say Harry cooperated with the Occlumency classes rather 
than actually consenting to them. He wasn't really offered a choice, he 
was told what to do. He just decided not to make it difficult by 
cooperating.

Alla:

> Because I still think that he consented by staying, and my earlier
> question stands - do you think that if he would have run away screaming
> no, no, no Snape would have forced him? I think he gave at least implied
> consent here.

Shaun:

Letting a student disobey you because there are practical reasons why 
forcing them to do something might not be desirable isn't really the 
same thing as saying that they weren't expected to do it in the first 
place. The fact you are able to disobey does not mean that obedience is 
consent.

> Alla:
>
> I find it hardest to justify not because of rule breaking and of course
> I remember that Lupin ripped Harry a new one, but because I do not
> believe that Snape was looking for a signs of new danger, if he did then
> sure it was justified, but if he was only looking for signs of past
> transgression - not justified in my book.

Shaun:

As I say, I find that interpretation interesting, and honestly rather 
confusing. I'm finding it difficult to get my head around how you could 
think that.

The incident in Hogsmeade has *just* happened a few minutes earlier. 
Draco saw Harry in Hogsmeade and immediately ran up to the school to 
tell Snape. Snape locates Harry within seconds of Harry re-entering the 
school. This is not a 'past transgression'. This is an act of breaking 
school rules that is being dealt with as rapidly as it is humanly 
possible for a teacher *to* deal with it. Unless you think teachers 
should either detect pre-crime and deal with misbehaviour in advance 
(ala Minority Report) or should let students get away with everything 
unless they catch them in the act, it couldn't possibly have been 
handled any more quickly without a Time Turner.

Secondly, I think it is very clear that Snape is concerned about Harry's 
safety as the reason why this particular rule is important.

"Everyone from the Minister for Magic downwards has been trying to keep 
famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a 
law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous 
Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences.'"

I think the main concern is Harry's safety - but even if it was just 
dealing with breaking the rules, it's just happened. He's been caught as 
he comes back into the school.

> Alla:
>
> Again, leaving this piece in, because I find this quote extremely
> unpersuasive and contradictory to other evidence we have. Yes, they say
> Legilimency is not mind reading, however Snape does not seem to have a
> problem to notice everything he needs to note, flashes or not, when
> Harry is unable to resist of course. Whose dog was it, remember?

Shaun:

OK, this is where I have a real issue with your argument. You are 
assuming that Snape is lying when he gives us the ONLY detailed 
description of what Legilemency is. The only time the author takes the 
opportunity to give us the details of a matter that is of major 
importance to the story she is telling us (she devotes large sections of 
a number of chapters to it) she has the character giving us the 
explanation *lie* to us. From a literary perspective that doesn't make 
much sense at all. Nor does it make sense to me from Snape's 
perspective. He is teaching Harry something of critical importance to 
preserving the safety of the entire Wizarding World - a world that Snape 
is risking his life to protect (for whatever reason) and he's going to 
lie to the boy. Never mind the Wizarding World - Snape is personally at 
risk of death if Voldemort ever decides that he isn't on his side.

But secondly, the example you give here, to me, is an illustration that 
Snape can't read everything Harry is thinking. If he could why would he 
have to ask whose dog it was? He should have already known.

Alla:

> He sees the door, he sees anything he wants.

Shaun:

Please show us some evidence for this, because I really can't see it.

In particular, I can't see any evidence at all that he sees the door 
(I'm assuming you mean the door in the Department of Mysteries) but even 
if he did, Harry thinks of that door constantly during their lessons - 
if Snape did see it, why not in a flash.

If Snape could read Harry's mind, I'd expect to see some sort of clear 
evidence of him knowing so many things throughout the series that 
there's no sign at all that he knows. Personally, the explanation that 
makes most sense to me is that Snape can do what he describes Voldemort 
as being able to do - know if somebody is lying to him. But not 
necessarily knowing what the truth is. But I'm open to evidence that 
shows him using knowledge that must have come from Legilemency or similar.

Again, I go back to the examples I gave previously of the times we might 
suspect Snape used legilemency on Harry.

Example 1 - when Harry, Ron, and Hermione have fought the troll. If 
Snape was able to read Harry's mind like a book on that occasion, why 
does he have no idea that Harry and the others know about Fluffy?

Example 2 - after that incident, if Snape was able to read Harry's mind, 
he should definitely know that Harry and the others are aware of the 
existence of the Philosopher's stone.

Example 3 - not really relevant. Snape pretty much already knows all 
about what has happened there, as it is all over the Daily Prophet.

Example 4 - if Dumbledore and Snape were able to know what Harry and the 
others were thinking they'd have known that Harry was hearing strange 
voices that others couldn't. Again, no sign that they work this out.

Example 5 - at this point when Snape has found out Harry is a 
Parseltongue, if he had gained knowledge at four, I think he probably 
could have worked out Harry was hearing a snake of some sort. No 
evidence at all that he does.

Example 6 - if Snape could read Harry's mind, he'd know they were making 
Polyjuice potion and why. Again, no sign that he knows.

Example 7 is the clearest of all though in my view. The incident with 
the Marauder's Map. In Snape could read Harry's thoughts, he'd have 
known it *was* a map. He'd also have known how to use it. He wouldn't 
have had to try and cast spells to make it reveal its secret.

Examples 8 and 9, are part of the same incident, but once we get to 10, 
we have another important example.

Snape *wrongly* thinks Harry and his friends have been stealing 
ingredients from his stores again. They haven't been (it's Crouch/Moody 
and Dobby). If Snape could read Harry's mind, he'd know Harry and his 
friends weren't the ones stealing the ingredients for polyjuice potion.

Alla:

> In other words, yes, this
> quote notwithstanding I think he sees stuff in Harry's head, any stuff
> in Harry's head he wants, when other does not resist.

Shaun:

Looking at every example we have, I can't see any sign that Snape can do 
more than tell whether Harry is lying or telling the truth. And 
certainly no indication that there is mind reading involved. If you can 
show us an example which shows otherwise I would like to see it.


> Shawn:
>  > 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:
>
> Good question. I believe Dumbledore did not use legillimency on Sirius
> because he wanted him in Azkaban, and when he talked to Sirius, dont you
> think he did use it? I think Pippin argued extensively at one time why
> they dont want to use Legilimency to determine innocence. Not that I
> like it mind you.

Shaun:

Why would Dumbledore *want* Sirius in Azkaban? I know Dumbledore can be 
positively Machiavellian at times more concerned with ends than means, 
but he would have to have a *reason* for wanting Sirius locked up if he 
did. Some plan involved. More significantly, why would he want the 
guilty party to escape?

I don't know if Dumbledore ever tried to use Legiliemency on Sirius. But 
Sirius was mad with grief and that may well have made him hard to read 
as one possible explanation

> Alla:
>
> And still they see the things in child's mind, very specific things,
> flashes or not.

Shaun:

'Flashes or not' is at the core of things to me. If all they see is 
flashes, they are not reading the mind in a way that I consider at all 
invasive. The degree to which this is done is important.

Alla:

I snipped your examples of real life teachers, but just
> wanted to say that you misunderstood me, sorry for being unclear. I know
> that teachers in some schools (or in many schools, I am not sure whether
> all private schools here allow it) are required to search students and
> in some instances I sure find it justified, but just as you brought the
> real life case, I thought I remembered the real life case where
> student's privacy was violated and parents brought it to court and won.
> I thought that there were more than one situations when parents brought
> it to court if not won, so people do not necessarily think that
> teacher's right to search trumps any right students have. If I find the
> link, I will send it to you.

Shaun:

But I believe you are talking about American cases (I have noticed your 
later message (and I have noticed your post to OT-Chatter on this as 
well) and I am actually familiar with the case you posted about. The US 
Supreme Court did rule that that that *particular* search was 
unjustified, basically because there was no evidence any other students 
were in danger - basically strip searching a child would be legal in a 
case where a real danger existed to others, but in this particular case, 
there was no such danger) and they really aren't relevant to the point I 
am trying to make. As I said in an earlier message, the doctrine of in 
loco parentis is not as important and significant in American education 
as it is in British and Commonwealth education. That's because America 
has a competing doctrine, also in place, called the parental liberty 
doctrine (also called parens patriae, but for some reason this one is 
more often given in English) which often overrules in loco parentis (in 
loco parentis says a teacher can function as a parent, parental liberty 
says an actual parent can deny them that power). In America, teachers 
generally do not have the same powers and duties in law as they have in 
the UK. That's a fact, but it means examples from the US aren't that 
helpful here.

America does not have the right to impose its cultural values on other 
countries, in my view. just because they are different.

And by the same token, Muggle society shouldn't try and impose its 
cultural values on the Wizarding World just because they are different.

And we should be very careful about doing the same.

We do not *know* what doctrine applies in the Wizarding World - but I 
think it is reasonable to assume that practice at Hogwarts is more 
likely to be closer to British practice than American practice, and 
especially to historical British practice.