hh_clubs | DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

Entry tags:

defense against the dark arts

DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

Hello DADA-ers!

I hope that you have gotten a lot of rest since our obstacle course and are ready for you next Challenge!

This challenge is fairly simple, all you have to do is express your opinion ~~this may be hard for my fellow Slytherins~~ just kidding!

Points:
This is a long debate, therefore there will be 10 pts awarded for first comment. 2pts for each additional comment. Initial comments must be 3-4 sentences and contribute to the on-topic conversation for credit. Follow up comments must consist of at least 2 sentences.

Deadline:
February 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm EST

Details:
Was Tom Riddle born evil or did he grow to be evil? Was Harry Potter innately good or could he have turned out bad? We heard some ideas from Dumbledore and Sirius when talking to Harry but what do you think?

Are people born being who they are or do they become who they are? Why are people good or evil? If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?

Participants will discuss and debate the idea of nature v. nurture and how one become good or evil. There are no sides for this discussion.

This suggestion was from

thesamanthahope so extra 5 points if you participates.

Bonus Points
In your first comment please tell me if you own any of the following books:
#019 The Dark Arts Outsmarted
#024 Defensive Magical Theory
#031 The Dark Forces: A Guide To Self Protection
#032 The Rise And Fall Of The Dark Arts
#047 Practical Defensive Magic And Its Use Against The Dark Arts

Owners will get 2 points per book!

You have to be a member to participate so
Join Us

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't really believe in the "Nature or Nurture" debate in general. We know now that both are important, the real questions are about how each interact, and how far one can negate the other's influence, and how they conflict with and reinforce each other.

I mean - take Harry. There are a LOT of things he got from his parents - his basic temperament seems to have come mostly from Lily, with some of James' recklessness and sense of adventure added in, and we know his talent for flying comes from James. But he also has a crapload of trust/abandonment issues stemming from the fact that he grew up in a cupboard, was neglected, emotionally abused and lied to by his uncle and aunt, and never had any friends until he was eleven. That's given him a massive "I have to stand by myself" attitude, which means he can't trust adults with his problems (except for depressed and unstable Sirius). I'm honestly surprised he didn't turn out a lot more like Voldemort than he did... if he'd grown up in an orphanage, like Tom, I think he'd actually have gotten more care and attention, and come out less of an arse than he is in the books.

Tom, on the other hand, is a sociopath. Which is a copout by JKR, IMO - after playing up all the similarities between Tom and Harry, she then goes, "Oh, Tom was born evil", and it's like - well, what's the point, then? And Harry, after all he went through, and all the reasons he's grown up to hate Muggles, turns out to be their champion? Um, no.

Realistically, Harry should have much more of a dark side, but the trouble is, JK seems to believe Nature trumps Nurture, and so we do have an Inherently Good Harry to put up against Sociopathic Tom, and Percy whose defection doesn't stick, and Sirius who seems to be so Naturally Good that he overcomes both genetics and upbringing to be immediately dissing Slytherin on the train...

In the real world, becoming good or evil is initially set by nurture, I'd say, though - it's about the things you're taught to prioritise, the way those things are presented, the beliefs you're given as "facts"... your inborn temperament can make these things easier or harder to accept, but in the end it's about what you're taught first, and then how you react to that. (Sociopathy and psychopathy are exceptions, of course.) In JKR's world, it appears to be just your inherent nature.

Sai // Ravenclaw

if he'd grown up in an orphanage, like Tom, I think he'd actually have gotten more care and attention, and come out less of an arse than he is in the books.

Yeah, people seem to forget that Tom grew up in an ORPHANAGE run by a stern old woman, not a CONCENTRATION CAMP. He may not have gotten a lot of attention, and the other kids may have been afraid of him and bullied him, but Harry spent ten years of his life being treated like a roach the Dursleys wished would just crawl into a corner and die. Mrs. Cole didn't refuse to feed Riddle, or lock him in a closet for days on end, or watch indulgently while other kids beat the crap out of him. Even Snape had it worse than Tom. Tom never had a family, but at least he never had to suffer through having a family that hated him. I'm surprised Harry's concepts of family and safety weren't MORE damaged by that. Of course, in children's literature, orphanages are usually dens of absolute evil ... but JKR didn't even write Tom's orphanage like that. Nurture can't completely explain Voldemort, because his environment just wasn't that bad.

And, yeah, Harry definitely should have been more damaged by his childhood. There's a really interesting essay about that in The Psychology of Harry Potter, and it ended with the author predicting that Harry would be doomed to a life of loneliness and restlessness because he wouldn't be able to really trust or stay with someone. He wouldn't be able to, say, get married and have kids because he can't stop himself from trying to push everyone away. That's psychologically sound, but Harry was magically saved from that fate because he needed a happy ending.

Victoria/Gryffindor

Yes, exactly! Tom's childhood was so much better than Harry's, the only way Harry could have come through what he did intact was JKR's Doctrine Of Inviolable Nature. Do people actually blaming the orphanage for what Voldemort did? Because that's kind of... insane.

I have more thoughts trying to put themselves together to be typed, but they will have to wait...

Sai // Ravenclaw

Equally, if it's nature, can we blame Voldemort for what Voldemort did? If it's beyond his control, he's no more actively choosing 'evil' than the inherently good nature of Harry.

Sam//Slytherin

Is it really beyond his control, though? Being a sociopath doesn't deprive someone of their ability to make choices. It doesn't stop them from choosing not to hurt people, it just makes them unable to understand why such a choice matters...

But then I'm talking about real-world stuff again - in JKR's world where Tom is inherently evil rather than naturally amoral (actually, I'd love to see an AU where he was amoral, and was actually working off a properly thought-out plan of what he thought was the rational way for the WW to be, rather than the "must hurt everyone in sight" thing he has going in canon), then maybe he doesn't have control over it... and maybe he really can't be blamed for it... Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't still have to be stopped.

Sai // Ravenclaw

Is it really beyond his control, though? Being a sociopath doesn't deprive someone of their ability to make choices. It doesn't stop them from choosing not to hurt people; it just makes them unable to understand why such a choice matters...

Thank you for pointing this out. People seem to have the wrong idea about sociopaths. They are not insane, they have no compassion and they are no capable of empathy, but they are completely aware of their actions. Their choices are still their choices, and they are still responsible for them.

Maria//Slytherin

It's interesting to note that Tom didn't really HAVE anyone to tell him, though, that what he was doing was wrong. By the time Dumbledore got to him, he was too adept at covering up his more socially unacceptable actions with a veneer of charisma.

So if Tom had been raised by a decent, loving family (I'm not saying the orphanage was horrible, just that it's not a substitute for the personal attention a family can give), would he be any different?

Stephanie//Slytherin

Good point. It's possible, I suppose, that if he'd had someone to teach him morals and offer him better choices early on, he might have turned out a better person. But then again he might not. While not all people with sociopathic brain structures become criminals, plenty of those who do come out of loving families who did try to teach them right from wrong... Tom might have listened to those trying to teach him, or he might still have made the same choices, and we really can't know for sure.

Sai // Ravenclaw

he trouble is, JK seems to believe Nature trumps Nurture, and so we do have an Inherently Good Harry to put up against Sociopathic Tom

To be honest, she was always going to pick extremes. You can't really expect children to wade through moral ambiguity, she's trying to teach 'em some good MORAL LESSONS don'tchaknow.

"Oh, Tom was born evil", and it's like - well, what's the point, then? She's made Harry inherently good, and Tom inherently evil. Because it's easier to think of the world that way. Despite going on, an don, and on about 'choices', in the end it boils down to "well, Tom was a nutter, but look at Harry's family influencing him beyond the grave. Awr."

Sam//Slytherin

She's writing for teens, though, wouldn't you expect teens to start being able to handle it? Feh to Good Moral Lessons, anyway! *bites thumb at them* Good storytelling is way more important!

Because it's easier to think of the world that way.

"What is right instead of what is easy." Wow, she's really shooting herself in the foot, what with this, and your point about choices - which frustrated me a lot, because you're right. She says all this stuff and then doesn't hold to it.

Sai // Ravenclaw

You can't really expect children to wade through moral ambiguity, she's trying to teach 'em some good MORAL LESSONS don'tchaknow.

I actually disagree. Children are way, way, WAY more capable of understanding complex moral dilemmas than anyone gives them credit for, and they usually don't need

I think, as other commenters have said, that this was a lazy choice on the part of JK, and that the story would have been much more gripping and informative to children if Tom had NOT been born evil; if we were shown that events in his life had caused him to become "evil". He would have been a much scarier villain if he'd actually had a plan for the wizarding world, I think, and a true reason for wanting to destroy the Muggles: he would have been terrifying if he'd thought he was doing the Right Thing. And I think that yeah, kids CAN understand that. :)

...unless of course you're being sarcastic. In which case I love you a little.

Stephanie//Slytherin

I was. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was a younger teenager I could almost smell moral lessons on books, and disliked the obvious stuff. It's best if the moral lesson is incidental to the plot, just like morality is wrapped around life itself.

Sam//Slytherin

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject