~~ Dumbledore and the Epic Problem of the Hero's Choice

[reenka]

What it comes down to is that as a reader, I'm not interested in subverting the text, whether or not I personally agree with its paradigms. So even if I thought Slytherins are JKR's misunderstood ickle babies, for instance, I wouldn't really care-- my bias is always going to be character-driven rather than environmental. If I can identify a personal 'archetype' or driving force behind a character-- and feel like I really understand it-- then that character becomes 'sympathetic' and not really in need of subversion so much as development (and being a fanfic writer more than a reader of the books as a main 'role', the development doesn't have to be JKR's). These two words are rather different, 'cause one implies judgment (of 'the Author' by 'the Reader').

So, admission of bias: I just plain don't care what The Author (in this case, JKR) is saying in a larger ethical context as seen from an outside pov-- my context is always going to be 'as seen from the inside'. By 'inside', I mean 'the world as seen from the pov of one of its characters', because I use empathy as my main tool for understanding. So the most important things for me to ask a character are 'who do you think you are?' and 'what do other characters think you are?' rather than 'who do -I- think you are?'. The 'I' of me-as-reader is just... irrelevant, since I understand any character through identifying with them.

In a way, I think this approach that stresses 'equal personal validity' among all the characters doesn't make sense as a moral system at all: it only makes sense as a writer's device. Thus, I'm usually reading/thinking about the books -as- a writer within them. It's almost like I'm riding on JKR's coattails, metaphorically speaking-- I'm trying to understand the books from the inside out, only asking the question 'what are they saying?' to see the -precedent- so that I could use it to write in that context.

Anyway, to get to my point (finally): Dumbledore.

I think the way one sees Dumbledore kind of determines how one perceives a large portion of the character dynamics within HP, if anything because he holds the most power (apparently) and thus controls the game to a certain extent, rather like a DM in an RPG. He discloses or doesn't disclose information at will, he has an agenda you pretty much -have- to choose to follow in order to 'win' the game, and he stands back and allows most events to happen without interference, thus letting a number of possibly fatal mistakes occur. He's almost literally 'larger than life' while remaining human (and thus fallible), so that any mistake he makes has a hundred times greater repercussions than that of a player. His motives are often clouded and you either accept he means well or you're out of luck, it seems.
    Even so, he gives the impression of a person who -cares- and understands the nature of people/situations better than one would initially guess from the eccentric-soft-headed-old-man demeanor which may or may not be an act. (Statement of bias: I don't think it is, or I would at least call it 'habit', and I do like him, 'nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak' & all.)
~~

So, here comes the major question: is Dumbledore 'evil'-- i.e., a 'Dark' wizard who's been corrupted by his longtime contact with that which he sought to subdue and the means he's used?
    I think no matter what your knee-jerk response, the question is too complex to answer with a yes or no, though after some disclaimers, I'd have to say 'no'. However, that is not the most important question.


1. Compassion, or The Ultimate Goal

Speaking outside the specific context of ongoing war and larger-than-life epic battles between magicians who could both destroy the world-- compassion clearly seems the top contender as 'the ultimate good', with the concept of 'justice' being dependent on a level of objectivity (or 'blindness to bias') that not really humanly possible. Compassion relies on a person's ability to empathize-- to put themselves in another's shoes-- while any notion of justice relies on a sort of (unrealistic) transcendence of ego. However, as far as an ideal, compassion serves as a form of 'Love' (perhaps 'love is blind' may be significant here), and is therefore as close as one could -get- to 'Good'.

If so, does that condemn Dumbledore (on 'humanitarian' terms)? Clearly, he makes sacrifices that have repercussions in real, human terms. By choosing compassion with one person, he can't help neglecting another. In the very set-up of conflict within Hogwarts (if not the Wizarding World), by choosing to favor one (Gryffindor), he automatically disfavors another (Slytherin). There can be no true fairness, so there must be something else instead he would hope to achieve.
    This question of the nature of the Ultimate Goal puts his function as Headmaster & Voldemort's Opponent in conflict, I think, especially in his role towards the Slytherins. And here one would separate wartime goals from peacetime goals, I imagine; also, it becomes important whether Dumbledore really believed Voldemort was gone when he lost his body (I think the prophecy implies otherwise).

What can be the Ultimate Good in a situation where choice becomes a matter of choosing -between- (often two undesirables)? What becomes the 'right choice' (and thus the Ultimate Good) when you can't save everyone? Is it actually possible to 'win', within this context...? In other words, can Dumbledore win and save everyone while retaining any sort of moral high ground?
    My answer, in the end, has to be 'no', but that's not Dumbledore's function to start with.

Dumbledore seems to have a wide network of informants and sources; ever since he questioned Tom about the Chamber of Secrets, he's probably been on his guard. Whether or not he's a Diviner seems... unimportant almost. Regardless, he's one of the most informed people and has the most potential conflicts of conscience.

He has to manipulate power and calculate all possible consequences like a chess-master or a DM, so he cannot be 'good' all the time to all the players, trying to be 'right' in the endgame. The process of predictive calculation implies sacrifice of some players for winning against the Black King (trying to predict the likelihood of outcomes means sometimes you overlook random factors and sometimes you don't have enough information). However, the costs do appear to grieve him & weigh on him heavily (judging from the tears at the end of OoTP if nothing else), and I do believe he doesn't want all this responsibility but feels it's his duty (especially given his attachment to Harry & relish of the creature comforts in life like socks & candy & tea).

Maybe in part, this approaches the concept that wisdom isn't equivalent to 'good'...? Sometimes knowledge is a burden, especially where there is no 'clean' solution.
    So often enough, Dumbledore has to be prepared to sacrifice his own ethics/wishes, as well as others'. In particular, this relates him telling Harry and Hermione how to rescue Buckbeak in PoA. They're forced to accept the fact that they have to go against a huge tradition/law like the one against time-tampering-- which may as well be a law of nature. It's obviously a loss of innocence, and I don't believe Dumbledore was happy about it.

This is the dilemma: once you realize the insolvability of some real ethical conflicts, what would be the ethical solution---? If the ethics of black-and-white absolutism aren't a complete method of solving real-world problems, then what is, and who decides...? And how does one justify deciding merely because one has been put into a position of power, where such decisions are -possible-?

Perhaps that's why he tried to make sure Harry's innocence was protected as much as possible, to shield him from the paradoxes and the frequent futility of 'good intentions'?
~~

2. The paradox of the White Hat: Kirk & Dumbledore.

I would say that he's not a White wizard the way that Voldemort is a Dark wizard (if anything, 'cause Dumbledore's a more complex character than Voldemort at this point, and we've seen more of him). I think it's interesting that Albus' first name comes from the Latin for 'white' according to the HP Lexicon, and one of the meanings of his last name is 'White Hat'. I think the problem is that there can -be- no 'pure' Black or White hats (for the duality itself is false if it implies there is no Grey), not in the complexity of human motivation. And Dumbledore is very human/fallible where the one thing Voldemort resists is any admission of his fallibility. However, I think perhaps the focus of one's orientation in the context of this archetypical duality would be whether one's ideals emphasize love/liberty/self-realization even if one's actions fall short.

As per pandarus' post, the difference between Dumbledore & Voldemort (the 'hero' & the 'villain'-- though Dumbledore isn't the Hero and doesn't entirely play by those rules) comes down to intent, and not being motivated by selfishness.

    Also, it seems significant that in this arc, it's Harry who's on the journey to become the opposite of Voldemort, not Dumbledore, who's already had his Fool's Journey. Dumbledore's and Voldemort's 'sides' have to be assumed to a certain extent for the story to commence-- it is Harry's heart that is in the balance. And here's where I get into archetypal mumbo-jumbo, meaning: I realize that if one tried to translate the story into reality, things would shift meaning, sometimes drastically.
~~

When I first started thinking about this (and now you're going to laugh), I was comparing Dumbledore to Jim Kirk & Spock to Snape (all right, fine, I know it's silly). Still, I think it's significant that Star Trek isn't a standard heroic quest-- much more so than the HP books, which follow the traditional progression of the Hero's Quest archetypes in a lot of ways. In the original Star Trek universe, there's more of a multiply circular model of individual Will, where the 'heroes' (the Fleet) has an overarching quest, but the individuals almost never act with that Ultimate Authority (thus being a circle within a circle), and the main hero actually constantly subverts the supposed Ultimate Goal and does whatever the hell he likes. (In this way Jim's more like Harry, because Dumbledore has already gone through his Quest with Grindelwald).

Jim Kirk & Dumbledore are both rogues but Jim is always the hero; he orders others but they just follow him, he doesn't delegate on ethical issues-- he asks for advice but his course is always personal. There is often a separation between the freedom of individual choice and 'fairness' or the Greater Good (and its connection to leadership of those who don't have the inclination to choose semi-blindly by those who do). I think a large part of what makes a Hero separate from a Mentor is that basic unawareness of the repercussions of his personal choice/initiative on the actions of the morally undecided population. Thus, he generally leads by example and personal charisma rather than by calculation and thus awareness of his effect on others. The Mentor archetype (Dumbledore, Yoda, etc) knows you can never really 'win' an 'epic' war without also losing (meaning, without compromising oneself to some extent), but if the Hero knew that, it would cripple him.

The questing Hero has to believe he can make his own destiny in order for the wild power of his Will to be fully effective-- which is why it makes story-arc sense for Dumbledore to have withheld the knowledge of his entrapment from Harry until the last possible moment. He told Harry he had no -Choice-, no Will, and that is the worst blow to a boy-- as well as someone's who's meant to be a Hero. That is, ultimately, the worst blow of becoming a 'grown-up'-- that no one person can fully control their own future, or make sure their actions are fully 'right' or 'free'.
~~

3. Snape's role as balance.

This is what it comes down to, after one realizes the futility of the individual's own desires, as told by Spock to Jim in `Wrath of Khan': 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. Spock was trapped, and made the only 'logical' choice, which yielded the most benefit in the greatest number of directions-- but would Jim (a Hero in his own right) have made the same choice? And finally, which is the 'right' decision, and for who? What are the individual's needs worth compared those of society they're a part of?

    There's no correct answer to that conundrum, so Dumbledore has to come up with his best guess. Snape, though, seems pretty convinced there is a fully correct answer, whether driven by logic or his own unshakable (and hard-won) beliefs. Voldemort thinks there's a single correct answer too: the scenario where he wins at any cost. Snape apparently follows the ethics of a harsh (non-compassionate) form of logic, which affects his more 'public' actions but not his personal judgments, which remain heavily biased.

It seems a bit ridiculous: Snape, trying to be fair? But even though he's unfair, he thinks he is-- or at least, he gives his students the opportunity to follow his 'rules' (however Draconian) and succeed on their own merits. In the context of the Hogwarts House system, clearly he tries to balance things and does show favoritism to the Slytherins to pull them up in a sort of affirmative action, but there are clearly lines he won't cross in terms of recognition of good work . He probably feels that the Gryffindors cheat within the ideal system of logical meritocracy and he merely compensates.

Snape's 'good intentions' shine through in his selflessness & self-sacrifice (being a spy, teaching distasteful Potions, serving Gryffindors, protecting Potter). However, it appears to be rationally rather than emotionally derived (which makes sense for a Slytherin). In this supreme rationality of choice, with his emotions kept forcibly separate (so that they don't lead him to some sort of violence, probably), his responsibilities/motivations might be seen as much simpler than Dumbledore's. Indeed, one could make a case that Snape's ethics are very pure. He was wrong once and he overcame his pride enough to learn to admit he was wrong and change tactics, which means he has the capacity to listen to a 'higher' judgment and give 'the enemy' his respect. This is a very rare (and rationally-centered) trait, especially since he still -resents- the enemy.

    Whatever the case, Snape seems to be trying to do the right thing now (especially with Quirrel & Harry in PoA and OoTP to varying extents) without any particular need for recognition-- thus the reward must be personal and most likely ethical.
~~

Dumbledore, on the other hand, wants to win at the minimal cost, but he realizes there will be a cost, and thus he has to deal with incomplete solutions most of the time.

He has to calculate the minimal cost... so many variables, so many possible solutions. He also has to worry about others' humanity being more protected than his own, especially if these are key players whose roles must be assured. So he manipulates his mind more than anyone else's (probably using the Pensieve to 'put away' memories which he can't deal with at the moment), trying to fail-safe himself more than anyone else. He seems to try to allow people freedom as well as trying to utilize them & maximize their potential.

The extent to which succeeds at his well-intentioned attempts at guidance-without-dominance and the full price he's going to pay, of course, remains to be seen.
~~

4. Harry's choice & the failure of Ultimate Good.

Is Harry a 'White Hat'? I think his motivations are too chaotic and self-centered (saving those he loves, punishing those he dislikes) to be 'heroic' at this point, but clearly he cannot 'win' while continuing in this style. As of OoTP, Harry is rather egotistical-- but I think he tries not to be (like with Ron's being a Prefect, for instance). He grew up away from true bonding experiences, and his whole Hogwarts experience has been a process of overcoming his early ego traumas, I think.
    One could definitely draw a parallel between becoming a White Hat wizard & becoming truly human & aware of both one's failings and entrapments as well as of one's responsibilities. Harry has to learn compassion. Thus, there is a contrast to Tom Riddle here, who had to go through inhuman trials to make him inhuman....

Maybe pure 'White Hat' wizards aren't as useful (would be corrupted) outside of battle, in reality--? One has to be able to recognize and defuse the dangers of the Dark Arts-- that is, if one has no working understanding of what one is up against, one cannot defeat it, as it would take one by surprise; however, such understanding requires a flexible/mature morality to incorporate into one's thinking.

Pure Goodness can really only function as a single, brilliant point rather than a plane that humans can sustain existence on. Meaning: 'mundane' reality cannot keep functioning in the absolute terms of Ideal. Therefore, one can achieve it, but not sustain it indefinitely in the multiplicity of the larger society, with everyone's needs being impossible to satisfy...?
    Lily seems to have had that one point of selfless compassionate 'Good' too, while during her adolescence she was more focused on some (easily corruptible) idea of `justice' & fairness. So maybe that one moment of incorruptibility then becomes the ultimate possible expression of Good?

Correspondingly, Voldemort wants to beat Death, willing to achieve it at the expense of everything-- so that would be the point of "incorruptible" evil (utter destruction)-- which by this reasoning, Voldemort hasn't quite achieved yet. It would be selfishness brought to its ultimate expression, one might say. Comparatively, "incorruptible" Good would be a form of healing-- a Seal of the rift this drive for self-preservation & selfishness creates. It's a more group-oriented dynamic-- thus combining the virtues of loyalty (vs. obedience), leadership (vs. dominance) and bravery (vs. fear, which is what would lead to obedience).
    Since Voldemort is approaching the point of ultimate Evil (were he to succeed), Dumbledore (the Grey) has to find and train (if necessary) the prophecied Hero/counterpart to Voldemort who would be up to being truly Good at the time of the rift, in order to balance it, because Dumbledore himself has already lost his 'edge'. During that final test of the Hero, he'd have to confront the Ultimate Adversary-- and after that high point (as with Dumbledore & Grindelwald), they'd come down into the Grey...?

Dumbledore has been trying to mold & protect Harry (from knowing certain things), with a future point always in mind. I don't think this implies that Harry's merely Dumbledore's tool, only that he's a student and Dumbledore is performing the role of a Mentor, who has to make that awfully difficult judgment call of what will serve Harry and what will harm him 'too much' and is 'unacceptable'. It is perfectly natural for Harry to become a teenager and resent this meddling-- who wouldn't? This very resentment and rebellion is a sign that he's growing up. He'd probably have done it whether or not he discovered Dumbledore had kept the Prophecy from him (among other things, I'm sure).

I would thus claim that -Dumbledore- is a tool of -Harry-, as much as if not more than the other way.
    In everyday reality (outside that Single Epic Point that changes 'destiny'), of course, there is a constant continuous flux of shades of Grey. Everyone's roles on the Continuum are then dependent on the given individual's pov. I think that explains how fallible & human & pathetic the Death Eaters are outside of the Ultimate Confrontation (which is all about the Hero and his Adversary rather than the minions, anyway).

Finally, it seems rather important to mention that Dumbledore isn't the Hero as one would be classically defined, though he was one in the past. The harsh judgment and extreme expectations placed on heroes would be a whole 'nother post, and pandarus had a great discussion of that recently.
    Harry is the Hero of this arc, and the real weight of eventual Choice (and the resistance of destiny) rests upon him-- though not alone, since learning to let others help (and accept some opposition) is part of a Hero's Journey. Regardless, being 'Good' & being a 'Hero' aren't necessarily the same thing in mythic/archetypical terms.

Another parallel I could draw is to Buffy & Giles. Giles is the mentor, and his moral failings are much more static (and necessary to 'free' Buffy, as when he had to kill Ben in season 5), it seems to me, compared to Buffy's process of growth & self-discovery. That is the main difference: that very cyclical process of a Hero's ascention to true 'Goodness', followed by a gradual corruption by knowledge, which is often in the service of training the next Hero.
~~~~~

5. Benevolence & necessity.

Put in context, I was startled and yet somewhat enlightened by seeing a comparison of Dumbledore to X-Men's Xavier and Superman(!) in a comment on mimesere's Honorable Stoics post. It really does come down to a distrust of 'benevolent' authority figures with a personal Code that's not readily apparent. I think the comparison to Xavier is really apt, btw. (And well, just so it's clear, I love Professor Xavier and just like Dumbledore, personally, but then Xavier is much more developed as a character in that we know more of his personal history.)

There's something to be said for people identifying/forgiving rogues/vigilantes or people who're obviously ethically much more questionable than whatever 'righteous' authority figure-- because I suppose they wear their flaws on their sleeves. Perhaps we expect our authority figures to live up to some almost inhuman standard of Good Fatherhood, and if they don't we tear them down. I'm also fascinated by this comment because of the mention of Star Trek authority figures-- Janeway, Picard, etc-- as being different (more liked) because the benignness is uber-exaggerated, but also there's no one else to root for. Like, if you don't go with Picard, who do you go with?

That reminds me of one's attitude towards wartime leaders, where people who'd decry their methods in peacetime suddenly rally behind them. And it does seem like Picard's ship is a hotspot of constant conflict in a Federation that's generally more at peace in his time.

There's something to be said for viewing Dumbledore as a necessary wartime leader-- and in fact, that seems to be the Ministry's problem with him, isn't it? He's stirring things up; he's making their status quo difficult. Then again, Voldemort really is back, and whoever really believes they want him as their leader (instead of Dumbledore), I think, is underestimating him. I mean, okay, some people think they'd like living in a regime, but. The thing about evil regimes is that eventually, even the favored minion's head is at the cutting block (or their hand, as the case may be).

Okay, what I'm saying is: both Dumbledore & Voldemort are 'The Man' in their own little way. But some er... men are better than some other men, even if the margin is basically 'they mean well'. And don't start tellin' me that Voldemort means well & that everyone means well, 'cause some people only mean well for themselves and everyone else can go do unmentionable things to goats (...that would be Voldemort). And it's not so much a 'lesser of two evils' argument... except yeah, okay, it is. But it's also a 'power is inherently greying' argument, where you couldn't really have a much better choice in the situation at hand, as far as I could see.

There are the bureaucrats (the Ministry); there is the apathetic and possibly vaguely resentful majority who stay away from the conflict until they're shoved in; there is the radical terrorist fringe (the Death Eaters) with Voldemort as the mafia leader. And then there is Dumbledore, who's something of a populist Reformer type (who at least polices himself too). It's not exactly grass-roots resistance by any means, since they're working with all the various power-cells including the Ministry, but it's as independent as it can afford, I think (to the point of indiscretion, I think, with Dumbledore turning down power at the Ministry).

Clearly, Dumbledore's policy is somewhat exclusive of Slytherin/radical concerns, but not entirely, because we have Snape, and it's also somewhat exclusive of the current system (which the Death Eaters are against). Snape is willing to be reasonable, where I think most of the others are (whoever they are-- what's another adult-- Lucius??!) And the kids are-- kids.

I think the Death Eaters' rallying cry of 'Down With The (Muggle-fancying) Man' is too easy and misleading. It's destructive and conservative rather than constructive or progressive in nature. The Death Eaters want to 'get back, get back' to where they once belonged, while I think Dumbledore wants to compromise and of course he'll wind up pleasing only some people some of the time and he'll make some people very very pissed off a lot of the time.

I guess people want things to be simple and easy-- morally clear, anyway-- where in reality they almost never are. No one's 'right', and everyone thinks they're just defending their rights or turn or whatever, so it all comes down to 'the larger picture', which no one can really agree on. It's pretty obvious 'something should be done', but who's going to do it? I think the key here is to get beyond one's constituency representation concerns (especially as Dumbledore is still Headmaster first and foremost) and be willing to compromise.

'You win some, you lose some' can be a very dangerous philosophy in the wrong hands, of course. And perhaps there's no such thing as the 'right' hands to wield a certain amount of power over people, but the fact is, that power sits there, and it's going to get wielded (in this scenario, at least).

As a wartime leader, Dumbledore can be trusted to do everything possible to attain peace with the least possible civilian casualties, so to speak. As a peacetime Headmaster, Dumbledore has a prudent (and sometimes overly zealous!) hands-off policy that keeps his dangerous powers to himself as much as possible and delegates most administrative functions to the Heads of Houses. It could be much worse, as far as someone else trying to do the job (and who else can?)
~~~~~~~

(The post also known as: man, I'm never writing any essays ever again. I think I broke my head.)