![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
“It seems to me that as innocent victims, guilty of nothing more than harboring a marked man, we ought to qualify for government protection!”
Harry laughed; he could not help himself. It was so very typical of his uncle to put his hopes in the establishment, even within this world that he despised and mistrusted.
DH, “The Dursleys Departing”
A followup of sorts to "Discipline at Hogwarts".
Some of the weirdness of the Potterverse morality may come because JKR seems to conflate the D&D categories of good and evil with those of chaos versus law.
(Here’s a cut to the Wiki definitions for those unfamiliar with the distinction.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignm
I came to this understanding through an examination of Dumbledore. One would naturally expect the headmaster of the WW’s premier school, the head of the Wizengamot, the chief of the International Confederation of Wizards, four-times-asked-to-be Minister, to be the very embodiment of Lawful Good in the Potterverse. Instead, as I showed in my “Discipline at Hogwarts,” Albus is himself chaotic (he would say, good, but others might argue that point), and strongly encourages lawlessness in others.
(Mind, it’s okay for people to obey HIM, since he knows best—but no one should ever put store on obedience to the Ministry, or indeed on rules and laws as such. And if you look, Albus in canon asks for obedience outside of the authority structures he commands, not usually within them. Albus doesn’t enforce school rules with Harry, but he asks that Harry give up his life to an extracurricular quest; Albus doesn’t command Hagrid as a teacher to visit the giants, but as an Order member. He does not, in short, use his positions of authority to make people obey him. Either they do so voluntarily out of their trust in his superior wisdom, or they’re fools and don’t.)
How weird. The authority figure most visible in the books disdains and flouts authority.
In the Potterverse it seems to be the case that Chaotic=Good and Lawful=Evil. All of the characters with whom we are expected to sympathize are rulebreakers to one extent or another, from Harry and Albus, down to Hagrid using his “umbrella” and rearing dragons, to Arthur tinkering in his shed, to Ron hexing a driving examiner to get out of following Muggle rules. All of the evil or unsympathetic characters, in contrast, are guilty of trying to use laws/rules to make others’ lives miserable.
Look at the Hogwarts staff who are most committed to enforcing rules: Snape, Filch, and Umbridge. Look at who joins the Inquisitorial Squad: those evil Slytherins. Look at the orderly and law-and-order-rhetoric spouting Dursleys.
(“Fair” Minerva is actually neutral on the order-chaos line—she’ll enforce rules if she chooses, and ignore them when she chooses. Harry’s punishment for disobeying Hooch and risking his life by flying before he’d had lessons, anyone? Or offering to fight Aurors at Dumbledore’s side when he’d just confessed [falsely, as it happens] to open treason?)
Almost every time we actually see the Ministry or Board of Governors actively exercising their authority it’s presented by JKR as stupidly mistaken at best, outright evil at worst. Expelling Hagrid, imprisoning Sirius, suspending Dumbledore, trying to execute Buckbeak, trying to expel Harry, sacking Dumbledore, imprisoning Hagrid and Stan Shunpike… how often are the Ministry’s actions simply wrong? And they can do nothing effective against Riddle—that requires Dumbledore and his band of Merry Men.
One would expect a psychopathic torturer/killer and his terrorist followers to be an embodiment of Chaotic Evil. (Indeed serial killers—of which Tom is one—are listed as the type’s representative.) Yet when Riddle does finally assume power, the Death Eaters set up a regime that’s a perfect illustration of a Lawful Evil tyranny—with Dolores given a prominent place of power. I think Jo just can’t imagine disorder and anarchy as truly paired with evil.
Which may be why Jo had to allow Voldemort to take over the WW entirely before Harry could defeat him. Death Eaters might otherwise have looked superficially like agents of disorder, like disruptors of established authority. But disrupting authority is intrinsically good—that confusion can’t be allowed to stand! So the Death Eaters had to be permitted to win temporarily so we could see their true face, could see Jo’s demonstration that Evil IS Authoritarianism (and vice versa).
This could also be why Dumbledore’s rather shaky relationship with the truth, and Harry’s gallant Cruciatus, are not problems for JKR: Saints are Lawful Good, and neither Harry nor Dumbledore is a saint. Who expects a trickster to be truthful, or a rebel to obey laws outlawing such-and-such a spell when he’s fighting Pure Evil?
Indeed, the Trickster archetype can explain why JKR condones both Dumbledore’s lies and manipulations, and the Statute of Secrecy, upheld by mass Obliviaton and Confunding of helpless Muggles.
Let’s draw a distinction: JKR agreed that Harry’s torturing a baddy showed that Harry had (minor) flaws. A more saintly Harry wouldn’t have done it. But nowhere in canon does the authorial voice criticize the use of memory charms, even though she shows that they can cause permanent mental damage. Her very world is built on, absolutely requires, their widespread use, and as the epilogue shows, “All is well” with that state of affairs continuing. Indeed, Jo goes out of her way to mention Ron Confunding a Muggle official.
The Lawful way to get someone to do what you want is to pass a Law and then enforce it, i.e. to Force them to Obey. The Chaotic way is to Trick them into it. It’s morally superior to Trick people than to Force them, even if you have to lie to them, drug them (Harry getting Slughorn’s memory), shamelessly manipulate their circumstances (Dumbles leaving Harry with the Dursleys) or even alter their minds (Kingsley with Marietta) to make them follow your will.
JKR apparently sees memory charms as a form of trickery, rather than as an extension of force. The Wizarding World is TRICKING us Muggles into ignoring them, and there can be no possible objection to that.
This conflation of chaos with virtue may also explain why some of us are at such variance with Jo about some of her characters. JKR may truly think that if she shows a character being rebellious/lawless/rule-breaking, that is the same as showing that character to be good at heart. No need to show any further “distinguished examples of benevolence”—it comes with the territory of being a rule-breaker.
Similarly, if Jo shows us characters bent on enforcing rules, that proves they’re really cold-hearted and evil, whatever other traits she has them show. Or at least misguided: if the character DOES have a good heart, s/he’ll eventually see the error of hir ways and abandon rule-enforcing. You know, like Percy and Hermione. (Which is why Lawful Percy has to apologize to the Chaotic Twins who tormented him for years and drove him out of his family, and never vice versa.)
JKR showed us James and Sirius breaking rules, and Snivellus wanting them enforced (against the Marauders, against the Trio)—what else do we need to know, to tell which was really good at heart? How could we possibly question her assertion that James was a hero of his age and Snape was not? She SHOWED us, clearly, what they were like. It’s not like Snape ever really reformed and gave up his rule-enforcing.
If we readers were any slower we’d be going backwards!
And Neville and the DA are Jo’s vision of people who are roused by example to Better themselves, to become truly Good: they are inspired by Harry to resist, chaotically, the Lawful Evil regime.
Which is why Jo presents cheeking teachers and defacing public property as being exactly as heroic and significant as refusing to commit torture under duress or suffering torture oneself to protect little kids.
I am serious: if you look, that what canon states. In “The Lost Diadem,” Neville details four specific things he/DA members did and were punished for by the Carrows. All are given equal weight. One of the “deep gashes” on Neville’s face came from Amycus, for refusing to cast the Cruciatus; the one on the other side was given him by Alecto, “for asking her how much Muggle blood she and her brother have got”. The DA was running around alternately scrawling on the walls, “Dumbledore’s Army, Still Recruiting,” and rescuing first-years from being chained in preparation for torture.
It’s all the same to Jo.
Jo even had Neville justifying doing utterly pointless things solely to piss off the authorities, regardless of the retribution those authorities might exact (this is where my own writing of Neville has, I must admit, been decidedly OOC): “The thing is, it helps when people stand up to them, it gives everyone hope. I used to notice that when you did it, Harry.”
Um. Yeah. Chaos good, lawfulness evil. Okay, I get your position, Jo. Even if I don’t agree.
(For a much more insightful look chaotic good fighting lawful evil, read Pat Murphy’s brilliant and heartbreaking novel, The City, Not Long After.)
And I loved "The City, Not Long After"!
Only in a sense - like Voldemort he wanted to establish his own order over the Muggles, after all.
re: lawfulness and dueling
Shows a lot of lost opportunities for the Voldemort character, I think.
A code in support of dueling would have explained a lot about him, like why he didn't attack Dumbledore - he thought it would make him look unsporting, he was afraid of losing the duel, etc. We could have been given a world in which some wizards have believable motivations to ally with Tom - I mean, there's Lucius, but other than that, all his goons are, well, goons. It all makes D. look pretty pathetic for not taking Tom out earlier.
Of course, dueling in itself isn't exactly lawful, depending on the social context. Come to think of it, a code regulating duels might have allowed Harry the chance to demonstrate some convincing moral growth as well. As it is, I'm not sure he ever got that it's not cool to hex Slytherins just because you can.
Oh, fascinating!
Weird of her, though. I mean. When I was a kid I was frequently victimized by people who manipulated the rules to their advantage. So I might be expected to sympathize with JKR's view. But to me, tricking someone into doing something *is* forcing them -- in fact, it's the worst *kind* of forcing them, because they never even get an opportunity to object.
...So James Potter tricking Lily into thinking better of him...brr.
...I have always read Severus as being haunted by his failure to protect Lily from...not so much just death but *that trickery*. (Since he had information -- especially the Prank -- that maybe could have protected her, if he'd just told her. I don't think Dumbledore put a spell on him to keep him from telling -- I think he "used Severus' cowardice against him" (because that's how Dumbledore would have thought of it) by saying he'd *expel* him if he told and BTW just "happening" to let slip that Dumbledore was a Legilimens...letting Severus realize that if he told anyone Dumbledore would see it in their mind... Speculation, sure, but such manipulation is consistent with Dumbledore's canon characterization.)
IMO choosing to do something on the basis of false information, and then *never even learning the information is false*, even *dying* without *ever knowing* -- well, that's the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone (*much* worse than simply being murdered). That can be called being "made a fool of" -- so when Severus tells Lily he's afraid James Potter will "make a fool of" her, it seems he's being depicted as feeling that way too. (BTW, the real problem with being tricked into something isn't that it's embarrassing, the problem is that you're doing something you might not choose to do if you had accurate information. Again, your autonomy is being violated, you're being forced to do something -- *and* since you don't know that, you don't have even the slightest *chance* to resist. To me, that's the worst kind of violation. How could it not be?)
So in JKR's mind, he was wrong to feel that way? Being always haunted shows he always kept on having the wrong values?
Interesting.
On the other hand, if JKR really does view Chaotic as good in general, and it's quite possible that she does, it says something interesting about why she said that they can't eliminate Slytherin House ("evil"). How could the good Chaotic people rebel against authority without someone to rebel against? They literally couldn't be "good" in that way without someone in authority!
Of course, the Chaotic alignment is about more than rebelling against authority. (See, e.g., Harry from Methods of Rationality. He does rebel against authority, but that's hardly the only way in which he's Chaotic.) In the canon Potterverse, though, I do think that most of the Chaotic behavior is about rebelling. There's also playing "practical jokes" on people, but that's *mostly* confined to Fred, George, and the Marauders.
Lynn
lawless Aurors
But the *good* Aurors in canon are all law-breakers. They have to be to be Order members, don't they? Working against the Ministry (for instance by subverting Ministry investigations like the hunt for Sirius) is part of their responsibility as Order members.
duj
Re: lawless Aurors
Put another way, being an Auror is something impressive, but being a prefect is run down more than it's lauded.
On the other hand, perhaps that's why the Aurors aren't described as Wizard policemen, but "Dark Wizard catchers." They aren't presented as supporting Lawfulness so much as fighting Evil, so perhaps I shouldn't think of their identity as connecting with the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum in the first place.
Lynn
Re: lawless Aurors
re: love this essay
I remember reading OOTP and thinking that Dumbledore is a terrible, terrible headmaster. Umbridge is not the solution to that problem; but the problem is real.
Interesting, isn't it, that Umbridge is the main voice of 'law and order is necessary for a harmonious society' and she is so thoroughly corrupt and hateful. I also thought for sure that after 4, Snape or McGonagall would serve as a counterpoint to Harry's reckless, rule-breaking tendencies, forcing him to evolve beyond brash rushing into danger.
So the Death Eaters had to be permitted to win temporarily so we could see their true face, could see Jo’s demonstration that Evil IS Authoritarianism (and vice versa).
________________________
This actually makes sense of something I expected to see in Bk7 about the past (VW1).
After JKRs treatment of the way Umbridge worked in bk5 (combined with the press in persecuting Harry) and with JKRs background of some involvement with Amnesty Int'l (and Amnesty Int'l's work against those governments that 'disappear' rebels) - I fully expected to find evidence of at least ONE misuse of the Unforgivables by Aurors in VW1. I personally had it pegged for a rather different scenario for Snape's joining the DEs in disgust of the 'good guys'.
Tinfoil Hat theory, but I felt sure she was going to shows us how lawful could be wrong. Well, she did - she just excused it by putting the bad guys in power which then apparently meant 'open season' on the use of torture by the good guys -- Hwyla
He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort’s supporters. The Aurors were given new powers – powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn’t the only one who was handed straight to the Dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorised the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects.
I heavily expected the death by auror of an innocent bystander - I won't go into the theory - it has now proven to not be where JKR was headed, but THIS explanation (that rebellion against authority is inherently 'good' - whether the authority is right or not) explains a great deal of why I was expecting the like.
Altho' I was expecting many shades of grey, JKR was thinning it back down to a limited few (mostly black and white, where even a little black could be done by the white, but it still stays white because it really is more about chaos and rebellion) -- Hwyla
RE: Voldemort giving the wand
Or, I don't know, maybe he thought he'd give Harry a nasty surprise by giving him his wand and then making him realize he's still totally helpless, like by doing something that destroys Harry's wand or renders him incapable of normal response.
No, I don't think JKR thought this matter through in that much detail...it's probably just there to make Voldemort and the scene a bit more creepy. Point is, I doubt it's there to show Voldemort's appreciation for lawful norms and behaviors (even if only just this one). It's just a chilling moment which is perhaps meant to tantalize and upset Harry by dangling potential security in front of him.
It's interesting that she puts that in there though, showing perhaps a glimmer of a sense of fair play in, of all people, the villain of the story!! Yaargh...
I actually really liked that little scene and I wish she'd done more with that, expanded on the graveyard setting/family history she incorporates/connection between Harry and Voldemort to develop the story. Alas, it's just cosmetic horror.
- Leah
Except for Percy, who's genuinely Lawful, and is therefore viewed as an idiot.
How many people genuinely respect Lawfulness, or the WW's laws?
Fudge? He may sound indignant about Harry's breaking the law in OotP, but he ignores the part of the law that allows kids to use magic to defend themselves. Nor did he care about Harry's breaking the same law back in PoA.
Umbridge? She illegally (right?) sends Dementors to attack a kid, to provoke him to use magic to defend himself.
Voldemort, in the duel in the graveyard? He has no problem with "breaking the rules" of dueling. He uses the Cruciatus on Harry while he's tied up, and some other spell to make Harry bow before the duel begins. Voldemort's just using the formal duel to try to humiliate Harry. It's not like he made sure that James and/or Lily had wands when he killed *them*, for instance. Nor did he worry about killing Harry when he was a one-year-old who couldn't duel.
Snape? Well, I think he's Lawful, but JKR would probably say that he just wants to get Harry in trouble, and uses the rules to try to do it.
Lucius? Uses the law as a weapon, but can he really respect the law when he belonged to a group like the DE's? (Not that being Lawful is all about respecting the government by any means, but I'm sure that JKR thinks this way.)
The Dursleys? Maybe. But even if they're Lawful, they don't exactly respect the law of the land the way they respect conformity. For instance, they don't instill any law-abiding behavior in Dudley; he and his gang go around beating people up. They use people's non-Lawfulness as a reason to look down on people that they probably wouldn't like anyway. They will try to turn to the law for protection, as in the quote at the top of this post, but it's entirely selfish.
Of course, this depends on a skewed view of what Lawful is, and a pretty narrow view of some of the characters, too. But it wouldn't surprise me if JKR saw the books this way.
Lynn