by Unknown
Finally, Professor Snape’s teaching was influenced by his internal identity organization which mirrors the hierarchy of positions in the wizarding world at large. As mentioned above, one’s position as a regular teacher does not accord the same status as that of Head of House or Deputy Headmistress. In fact, any work in the educational field isn’t very prestigious in the wizarding world. Wizarding parents like Mrs. Weasley hope their children will work for the Ministry after graduation; and students who hold this aspiration for themselves must receive top marks. Being a professor, however, was not as valued. Dumbledore, for example, baffled people with his contentment as a professor; such talent, it was thought, belonged in top positions at the Ministry (SS 64-65). That is because talent was recognized in the wizarding world. Order of Merlin was awarded for great deeds, and discovering new potions or magical properties, not for having one’s students’ ace all their N.E.W.T.s. With regard to Snape, then, we can expect his identity as a skilled potions maker to have been higher on his internal identity hierarchy than other less prestigious identities like professor. To maintain his reputation and identity as a Potions Master, therefore, it was pertinent that no one surpass him in knowledge or skill. His rigorous curriculum coupled with a hands off teaching methods ensured that the students were prepared enough for their O.W.Ls and N.E.W.T.s while simultaneously protecting his identity as Potions Master by not allowing the possibility that someone could become a better potions maker than he was.
Conclusion
We mentioned in the opening of the chapter that the Social Structure and Personality paradigm also explains how an individual can affect the social structure. To “[t]hose familiar with the history of the most recent wizarding war” (TBB xvi), Snape’s personal effect on the social structure of the wizarding world is obvious. Were it not for Snape’s love of Lily and request that the Dark Lord spare her life, she would not have had the choice to step aside or continue shielding Harry. This is significant, because it was her wilful sacrifice that provided Harry, first, with magical protection and, ultimately, the strength to do “what [his] mother did” (DH 738), which of course led to the final destruction of Lord Voldemort. In this manner, the life of Severus Snape is an exemplar of both directional paths of Social Structure and Personality paradigm.
Dumbledore may be correct that our choices are more important than our abilities; however, he also understood that one can only make choices amongst the available options – which are determined partially by one’s structural location (i.e., “what one is born”) and experiences in society. Prior to his death, when discussing Voldemort’s mother’s “choice” of death rather than to live for her child, he counseled Harry “do not judge her too harshly... She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother’s courage” (HBP 262). Snape, like Merope, was greatly affected by the poverty, abuse and generally harsh circumstances of his early life. They both did what they what they could to the best of their limited capacity: Merope did not choose to live for her son, but her dying act was to secure a safe place for him to live after she was gone. And while Snape was by no stretch of the imagination ever nice to Harry, he kept his pledge to protect Lily’s son literally until his dying day.
We must understand that Snape’s father ruined his childhood; James ruined his youth; and Voldemort took his one happiness in life when he killed Lily. Miserable childhood, unhappy youth, lousy job, a life dedicated to the woman he could never have and a boy that he hated. Sociology reminds us that “the biographies of men and women, the kinds of individuals they variously become, cannot be understood without reference to the historical structure in which the milieu of their everyday life are organized” (Mills 1959: 158). Using the Social Structure and Personality paradigm, one can see how the wizarding social structure shaped Snape’s personality and made him the man and type of professor that he became. Mills (1959) said this knowledge is both a terrible lesson and a magnificent one. We agree. And while past suffering, even understood, does not excuse individuals like Snape from often cruel treatment of others, it allows us, as it did Harry, to have compassion and forgiveness for a great man: Severus Tobias Snape.
References
Bandura, Albert, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A. Ross. 1961. “Transmission of Agression through Imitation of Aggressive Models.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Pyschology, 63: 575-582.
Mark, Karl. 1851. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Pp. 329-355 in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Second Edition. Edited by D. McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacLeod, Jay. 2009. Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income Neighbourhood. Updated Third Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rowling, J. K. 1999. Interview with The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. [2002] Symbolic Interactionism: A social structural version. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press.
Swindler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
“Or Dear Bellatrix, who likes to play
with her food before she eats it.”
Why the Wizarding World
Needs Death Eaters
Jenn Sims
“Not all wizards are good”
The Death Eaters, Harry Potter learns after the mayhem at the 422nd Quidditch World Cup, are some of those wizards about whom Hagrid was speaking when he said that “not all wizards are good” (HP1). The atrocities committed by the Death Eaters are infamous. They destroyed the Millennium Bridge in London (HP6), tortured the Longbottoms to the point of insanity, and killed Muggles and Muggle-born witches and wizards just for entertainment. Based on this, one would assume that the wizarding world would be a much better place without them. After all, had there been no Death Eaters then countless deaths would be prevented, there would be no First or Second Wizarding Wars, and Harry and Neville would each have grown up with two loving parents….
Sociologists, however, would argue that, despite their misdeeds, or indeed because of them, the Death Eaters are a vital and needed element of the wizarding world. While definitely not “good” for society, the existence of crime and criminals, and the system of trials and punishment to which they are subjected, is “normal” and “functional” for a healthy society. This chapter will discuss the, at first glance, outrageous claim that “something repugnant may nevertheless have a useful reason for existing” (Lukes 1982: 32).
“That’s illegal!”
Functionalism, as summarized in chapter two, is a classic theoretical perspective in sociology. Developed by Emile Durkheim, the major premise is that society is composed of interrelated “parts” that must work together to make the whole function properly. Each part (e.g., the family, schools, health care, government, culture, etc.) has a role to play. If one doesn’t perform well, the whole suffers. Yet what contributing role could heinous crimes and hardened criminals possibly play to ensure the smooth functioning of society? Durkheim addresses this conundrum with his theory of crime and punishment.
Across several books and essays, Durkheim explains that crime and punishment are both normal and functional. Regarding normality, he theorizes that crime is normal because it exists in every society. “By virtue of the fact that we each have our own organic constitution and occupy different areas in space,” he writes, “it is impossible for everyone to be alike,” (Lukes 1982: 100). Crime, actions that receive punishment for offending strongly held moral sentiments, is therefore inevitable. There will always be some witches, wizards and Muggles who do not share the dominant view of their society and consequently whose behaviors offend others.
Durkheim’s theory also states that crime is functional for society in so far that by collectively punishing criminals “not only are moral boundaries of the community clearly demarcated, but the strength of attachment to them is reinforced” (Reiner 1984: 180). M
oreover, punishing crime “strengths social solidarity through the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the conforming population” (ibid). Finally, Durkheim postulates that crime is “positively beneficial” for society (Reiner 1984: 181). In so far that the conforming population must continually respond to criminal activities, crime can be seen as “the precondition for a society’s capacity for flexibility in the face of essential change” (Reiner 1984: 181). Durkheim’s theory of crime and punishment, then, is that it is normal because it is inevitable, and it is positively functional because, in punishing crime, society’s norms and values are revealed, moral and social boundaries are created, these are reinforced via punishment rituals that provide social solidarity among conformers, and innovation and social change are made possible (Kidd 2007). This theory allows us to understand that, evil as they are, the Death Eaters nonetheless serve a vital function in the wizarding world… to a point.
While the existence of some crime may be functional, “excessiveness is pathological” (Lukes 1982: 98). There can come a point when, if it reaches a certain level, criminalized deviance becomes detrimental to the current social order and may even destroy it entirely. However, despite acknowledging that at a certain level crime becomes detrimental, Durkheim’s theory “gives us no ready recipe for calculating” what level is functional and what is destructive (Reiner 1984: 182). Subsequent theorists have sought to extend the theory to address this gap. To understand how crime becomes pathological, we will turn in the latter part of the chapter to Pierre Bourdieu, whose thinking was greatly influenced by Durkheim, and his theory of the conflict over the “logic of the field.”
“They’re his too-- his followers”
Norms
The first premise of Durkheim’s theory of the functionality of crime is that it “defines the norms of a society” (Kidd 2007: 70). According to Durkheim, crime is, at its simplest definition, an “action that offends certain collective feelings which are especially strong and clear cut” (Lukas 1982: 99). Commonly referred to as “morality,” the existence of these deeply ingrained norms, values and feelings are vividly brought to light when they are offended; as such, the best way to learn what norms society values most is to examine the offenses that it considers most egregious. In the wizarding world, the three “Unforgivable Curses,” popular among Death Eaters, are the “most heavily punished by wizarding law” (GOF 212).
Barty Crouch Jr., disguised as Professor Alastor Moody, introduced the Unforgivable Curses to Harry Potter and his classmates in their grade four Defense Against the Dark Arts class. The first curse discussed was the Imperious Curse, which involves “total control” of another as explained by the impostor Moody (GOF 213). He demonstrated the curse on spider, making it dance around to the amusement of the class; but the laughter subsided when he made the students see the severity of it. With total control of another, you can make them hurt, even kill, themselves or others. As such, the Imperious Curse is illegal because it offends against the collective sentiment that individuals should be autonomous. In Europe, the ideology of respect for individual autonomy arose during the Enlightenment period, admittedly though at first focused on the rights of the masses against stifling control by institutions such as the government and the church. The Imperious Curse, therefore, violates the liberalist norm to respect individual’s “freedom of expression and action” (Blackburn 2005). The strength of this norm can be seen in efforts, such as Harry’s and Barty Crouch Sr.’s and Jr.’s, to fight being controlled by another.
Another Unforgivable Curse is the Cruciatus Curse which causes the target agonizing pain. The impostor Moody’s demonstration of this curse on a second spider caused Neville much distress as his parents subjection to it 13 years prior had led to their insanity and his, essentially, being an orphan. The illegality of Cruciatus Curse shows that the wizarding world has a norm to not harm others. However, as Bellatrix explained to Harry after his failed attempt to curse her for killing Sirius, “You need to really want to cause pain – to enjoy it – righteous angry won’t hurt me for long” (GOF 810). In this way, we can see that wizarding morality distinguishes not only between the intentionality of the one causing harm (i.e., justified or for pleasure) but also among the moral standing target (i.e., guilty or innocent) as well. Only harming others in and of itself, for no other purpose than to hurt them, is morally offensive; and only harming those who have done nothing wrong is morally offensive. Harry was angry at Bellatrix, but because it was righteous anger and she was guilty of committing a grave offense, the curse only “knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain” (ibid). Therefore, via the Cruciatus Curse, we can see that for witches and wizards it is morally wrong to specifically harm innocent[xii] others for pleasure.
The third and final Unforgivable Curse is Avada Kedavra – the killing curse. The norm and value that this curse violates is obvious: respect for human life. Respect for human life is so valued that killing is explicitly outlawed in almost every society on earth; unlike torture, for example, which is legal in some places and under certain circumstances. In the wizarding world, killing is considered “the supreme act of evil” (HBP 498). It is “rips the soul apart” which is considered “against nature” (ibid). Moreover, unlike righteously causing pain to the guilty, which the Cruciatus Curse’s lack of effectives on those who have committed evil acts shows is morally acceptable, killing even the guilty is considered morally reprehensible. In many modern nation states the Death Penalty – the killing of criminals deemed especially dangerous – has been eradicated. This shows the depth of societies’ commitment to respecting human life, all human life. Harry, too, values human life to this extent. In the final showdown with Voldemort Harry asked him to “try for some remorse” (DH 741). This, he knows, is the only way to mend and save his soul, and thus his life (DH 103). After all the suffering that Voldemort had caused him personally and the wizarding world in general, Harry still did not commit the act against nature and kill Voldemort. In the end, Voldemort’s own backfired Avada Kedavra curse killed him instead.
Boundaries and Rituals
Crime not only makes explicit society’s norms and values, but it “establishes social boundaries” (Kidd 2007: 70). Criminals serve as an out-group against which the rest of the law abiding members of society use to define their social identify. Social psychologists theorize that there are multiple foundations for identity including role, group (i.e., social), and personal. Social identities are:
based on a person’s identification with a social group (Hogg and Abrams 1988). A social group is a set of individuals who share the view that they are members of the same social category. Through a social comparisons and categorization process, persons who are similar to the self are categorized with the self and are labeled the ingroup. Correspondingly, person who differ from the self are categorized as the outgroup. (Burke and Stets 2009: 118).
The general magical population needs the existence of crime and criminals like the Death Eaters in order to see themselves as a law abiding group; and the Death Eaters need “blood traitors” and other groups in order to form their social identity. In other words, there can be no “we” without a “them.” Crime’s ability to establish social identities by separating criminals from others is further evidence that it is functional for society.
It would be prudent to take a moment here to assure the reader that sociologists are not attempting to justify crime or laud criminals. As Durkheim explains, “if it is normal for crimes to occur in every society, it is no less normal for them to be punished. The institution of a system of repressions is as universal a fact as the existence of criminality, and is no less indispensable to the collective well-being” (Lukes 1982: 32). In other words, we must remember that “[crime] serves only when reproved and repressed” (Durkheim 1897: 362). The social institution responsible for defining and enforcing the laws of a society is called the criminal justice system.
In the wizarding world, the criminal justice s
ystem consists of courts, trials, law enforcement organizations and prisons. Remembering that punishing criminals “strengthens social solidarity through the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the confirming population” (Reiner 1984: 180), we can view court trials and public sentencing to prison as providing “rituals that helps build solitary” (Kidd 2007: 70), the third premise of Durkheim’s theory. Rituals are social ceremonies. The trials of Death Eaters after the First Wizarding War were rituals that publicly reaffirmed the societies’ norms, reinforced social boundaries and identities, and created solidarity among the law abiding magical public. Similarly, public sentencing to prison is also a ritual. It is symbolically and literally erecting social boundaries between groups, law abiding versus not, by sending the criminal away from the general population.
While the use of an unforgivable curse is “enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban” (GOF 217), these curses are actually not, as the imposter Moody claimed, the most heavily punished offenses in the wizarding world. Life imprisonment is nowhere nearly as horrifying as the Dementor’s Kiss, a punishment that is “nearly unbearable to witness” (HP3) which involves the removal of one’s soul from her or his living body. The Kiss was used, prior to the re-constituted Ministry, as a punishment for only one offense: escape from prison. If, as stated above, the best way to learn what norms society values most is to examine the offences that it considers most egregious, why would escape from prison be more offensive to the collective sentiment than abuse, torture or murder? Moreover, what boundaries would it form or groups would it give solidarity to? The answer lies in what breaking out of prison can be seen to represent. Having been judged, by due process or not, to be unfit for general society, Azkaban escapees commit the ultimate offense when the leave – refusing to recognize the existence of the social contract.
