The excuse proffered that it is for their own good does nothing more than emphasize the contempt, as demonstrated by the character's actions, for the idea that non-wizards/witches could have free will or the capacity to recognize their own self interest.
Actually, given the circumstances, Hermione's parents aren't in an especially good position to "recognize their own self interest" in this situation. Keep in mind that the major problems with social division in these books is entrenched in the institutions themselves.
1) Much of Wizarding Law privileges wizarding households of pureblood descent, or at least those households with greater wizarding heritage. The point behind the wand laws referenced in earlier comments is that the law isn't designed solely to keep wizarding children from doing magic with wands. At one point in the series we're made to realize, I think in conversation with Dumbledore, that the wand law can't really be enforced upon a household of established wizarding heritage. The Ministry can only track when magic has been used, not necessarily who has used it. Thus a muggleborn student using magic outside of Hogwarts is easily discovered by process of deduction.
2) Wizarding Law prohibits Muggles from knowing details of the WW, ostensibly to protect the WW from Muggle persecution -- although it's quite clear that the power dynamic between Wizards and Muggles has shifted as the WW has faded into Muggle obscurity. Fudge and Scrimgeour's interactions with the Muggle Prime Minister are evidence of this. Thus, Hermione's parents are placed in a rather liminal space in the books for reasons that are neither their fault nor Hermione's. They are victims of a larger historical narrative unconcerned with the minor details of individual characters. They are, in fact, left in a spot where knowing all they need to know to make a full decision leaves them rather vulnerable. Imagine if they'd muttered Voldemort's name while the taboo was in place.
This doesn't fully exonerate Hermione of Cardgirl's charge. In the most abstract sense of human rights, Hermione does violate freewill. But, I think we're stuck with two, potentially incommensurable, questions. Does Hermione violate her parents' freewill? Yes, without question. Do her actions at least help protect them? Yes.
If anything, Hermione's choices here indicate something about the nature of social change found in all manner of novels dealing with the issue. Whether radical and revolutionary, or gradual methodical, the nature of such social change is always messy and incomplete -- one must account for too many factors for it to be a clean and easy transition. As long as we're pushing 19th century comparisons, Heart of Darkness comes to mind as a case. That novel is nothing if not a study in different manners of shifting from the European colonial norm to an understanding of the plight of the colonized, and Marlowe's transformation is without question more complicated and sometimes more inconsistent than Hermione's.
All this is underpinned by the lack of analysis of one thing that's surprised me a bit here: Dumbledore. He's important for two reasons: 1) He's the locus wherein this very same kind of question plays out in multiple ways (Snape, Grindelwald, Harry, Trelawney, etc.); 2) If any character is ever a full throated mouthpiece for Rowling on these subjects, then it is Dumbledore.
The distinction between "Right" and "Easy" helps us alleviate some of this tension. One central theme of the books is that such a distinction isn't always simple to define. After all, from the end of GoF onward, negotiating the distance between the two is the central conflict in Harry's life and education (and that of the others, for that matter). That this is a moral matter is pivotal because it harkens back to Hermione's actions vis-a-vis her parents. I agree, from a fixed moral foundation, Hermione's actions are troubling.
But in judging her as either saint or sinner, aren't we giving way to the false moral dichotomy the whole series critiques? Aren't we to believe that it is a false construct to simply divide the world "into good people and Death Eaters"?
no subject
Actually, given the circumstances, Hermione's parents aren't in an especially good position to "recognize their own self interest" in this situation. Keep in mind that the major problems with social division in these books is entrenched in the institutions themselves.
1) Much of Wizarding Law privileges wizarding households of pureblood descent, or at least those households with greater wizarding heritage. The point behind the wand laws referenced in earlier comments is that the law isn't designed solely to keep wizarding children from doing magic with wands. At one point in the series we're made to realize, I think in conversation with Dumbledore, that the wand law can't really be enforced upon a household of established wizarding heritage. The Ministry can only track when magic has been used, not necessarily who has used it. Thus a muggleborn student using magic outside of Hogwarts is easily discovered by process of deduction.
2) Wizarding Law prohibits Muggles from knowing details of the WW, ostensibly to protect the WW from Muggle persecution -- although it's quite clear that the power dynamic between Wizards and Muggles has shifted as the WW has faded into Muggle obscurity. Fudge and Scrimgeour's interactions with the Muggle Prime Minister are evidence of this. Thus, Hermione's parents are placed in a rather liminal space in the books for reasons that are neither their fault nor Hermione's. They are victims of a larger historical narrative unconcerned with the minor details of individual characters. They are, in fact, left in a spot where knowing all they need to know to make a full decision leaves them rather vulnerable. Imagine if they'd muttered Voldemort's name while the taboo was in place.
This doesn't fully exonerate Hermione of Cardgirl's charge. In the most abstract sense of human rights, Hermione does violate freewill. But, I think we're stuck with two, potentially incommensurable, questions. Does Hermione violate her parents' freewill? Yes, without question. Do her actions at least help protect them? Yes.
If anything, Hermione's choices here indicate something about the nature of social change found in all manner of novels dealing with the issue. Whether radical and revolutionary, or gradual methodical, the nature of such social change is always messy and incomplete -- one must account for too many factors for it to be a clean and easy transition. As long as we're pushing 19th century comparisons, Heart of Darkness comes to mind as a case. That novel is nothing if not a study in different manners of shifting from the European colonial norm to an understanding of the plight of the colonized, and Marlowe's transformation is without question more complicated and sometimes more inconsistent than Hermione's.
All this is underpinned by the lack of analysis of one thing that's surprised me a bit here: Dumbledore. He's important for two reasons: 1) He's the locus wherein this very same kind of question plays out in multiple ways (Snape, Grindelwald, Harry, Trelawney, etc.); 2) If any character is ever a full throated mouthpiece for Rowling on these subjects, then it is Dumbledore.
The distinction between "Right" and "Easy" helps us alleviate some of this tension. One central theme of the books is that such a distinction isn't always simple to define. After all, from the end of GoF onward, negotiating the distance between the two is the central conflict in Harry's life and education (and that of the others, for that matter). That this is a moral matter is pivotal because it harkens back to Hermione's actions vis-a-vis her parents. I agree, from a fixed moral foundation, Hermione's actions are troubling.
But in judging her as either saint or sinner, aren't we giving way to the false moral dichotomy the whole series critiques? Aren't we to believe that it is a false construct to simply divide the world "into good people and Death Eaters"?
~Dave the Longwinded