In what way do magical powers define witches and wizards?

[donnaimmaculata]

I'm currently re-reading HBP and a question has begun to form that has been nagging on the back of my mind for ages. In very simple words that question is: What does magic really mean for witches and wizards? How integral a part of their selves is it?

Basically, witches and wizards define themselves over magic. Magic is part of what they are. It's not just an extra skill but rather an inherent power that, carefully cultivated and honed, results in extra skills that are used to faciliate many aspects of life. Right? Magical powers are a bit like intelligence: a gift of nature based on which extra skills can be acquired. This would make witches and wizards the prodigies of the human species, and the way many witches and wizards talk about Muggles, it is apparent that this is what they consider themselves when compared to Muggles.



Magic is often used as a substitute for machinery or physical exertion. - An example that springs to mind is Hermione's "Muggle Studies" book which features an illustration of "Muggles lifting heavy objects". It implies that the act of "lifting heavy objects" is something out of the ordinary for witches and wizards, who use charms instead. However, we know that underage witches and wizards are not allowed to use spells outside school. They must lift heavy objects manually. (IIRC, this is what Fred and George do in PS, when they help Harry heave his trunk onto the Hogwarts Express.) They are not allowed to use their powers and their skills - even though these do already exist - until a certain age. To me, this implies that magical powers are not, in fact, as inherent and "natural" a part of a witch's and wizard's life as it seems. Their use is strictly regulated. (People who were kicked out of Hogwarts are not allowed to use magic, either (cf. Hagrid).) So, if magical powers are inherent, like intelligence, this would mean that the use of intelligence is restricted by law.

Moreover, as illustrated on the example of Tonks in HBP, magical powers can be reduced and, possibly, even lost due to suffering and emotional distress. OotP implies that being a Metamorphmagus is what Tonks is, what she has been since always and what defines her sense of self. "Metamorphmagi are born, not made" (paraphrased), as she tells Harry on first meeting him. And yet, even though she is a Metamorphmagus, this does not mean that she will always remain one. If she loses the powers that have defined her all her life her because of an unhappy relationship/lovesickness/worrying about loved ones, what does that mean for her sense of self? If magical powers are an inherent part of what witches and wizards are, they are more than just extra skills. And if they are more than just extra skills, their loss must be truly shattering.

So, I'm not sure how to approach the concept of magical powers. On the one hand, they come intrinsically, as a gift of nature. On the other hand, witches and wizards are painfully aware of these powers as something "special". Magical powers are actually treated like privileges of birth: wizards are the aristocrats, Muggles are the serfs, and HBP!Tonks is the impoverished relation.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Comments

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

Magic is often used as a substitute for machinery or physical exertion.

Well, yes, that's an obvious comparison and even in most fanfic, that's the main role magic plays a lot of the time, but I think it's a bit deeper than that. Now let's see if I can articulate it

The ability to do magic is more than that - it almost has to be. Especially once an individual is educated - trained, I would liken it more to one of the senses. And the loss of such an ability would not only be physically debilitating, but emotionally as well. The wand, and therefore ones ability to do magic (unless one is truly skilled like Dumbledore - wandless magic) is like an appendage - having a third arm. Like losing your sight, or hearing - or an arm. Yes, there are ways to compensate (braille, audiobooks, guide dogs / closed captioning, sign language / prosthetics) but these take training and patience to learn these skills, to learn to adjust.

For a child, in a very real way, it's not as debilitating as it is for an adult. A person who is born blind or deaf has no "internal" comparison for the loss. They've never 'physically' known what it is to see a sunset, or hear music. But an adult who has known, which would be a more...common reaction: a) Oh well, I was lucky to have experienced it and I still have my memories, or b) Something along the lines of panic/My life is over!/Depression/Fear/Bitterness

To go back to the machinery/physical exertion analogy, how many people do you know who would actually get up and walk over the television to change the channel in lieu of using the remote if the remote was in their hand? And even more, when we can't find the remote, we still spend time looking for it rather than, you know, physically getting up and going over to the television and doing it manually. For us, technology not only breeds laziness in some respects, but we retrain ourselves to cope with it. Even in tiny insignificant ways. Like the TV remote. I remember the days before remotes even existed. What did we do before telephones? Before email and IM, we wrote actual letters to people. Before cell phones, we memorized phone numbers and used pay phones. How many of your friends' phone numbers do you know by heart, rather than which number they are in your speed dial? When the electricity goes out, we are singularly unable to cope with disasters because electricity is integral to our existence. For heat, water - even preparing food.

Time traveling to the past is an exotic fantasy, but how many of us would actually be able to cope? With having to make our own clothes? Having to hunt down, grow, gather or kill our own food and then prepare it? Having to build shelter with our hands and minimal tools - and having to build the tools themselves by hand? Without access to a toothbrush and toothpaste or a toilet? We bemoan when LJ goes down for a few hours or our computer connection is running slower than normal. People with cable or DSL connections can't bear the thought of going back to dial-up!

Once a wizard is trained to use their magic, having it taken away or not being able to use it is very much akin to us not having electricity, or any of those examples I used above. Before they're trained though, well, I got along fine for 16 years without driving a car - I rode my bike, had my parents to drive me places, took the bus (side along Apparation/floo/Knight Bus), but now, at age 39, you take away my car, and I'm not leaving the house. Yes, I scoff at Public Transportation. Yes, I'm a snob. :-P I mean, I'd adjust and change my ways if I was suddenly left carless, but I'd certainly bitch and complain and freak out about it.

To a witch or wizard, the powers aren't "special" any more than electricity, technology, or having the ability to see and hear is "special" to us. We take all those things for granted until they're threatened. It's their way of life and they were brought up...expecting it. Anticipating it. For us mere Muggles, well, that's why we invent things. That's why we have technology when the Wizarding World does not. Mother Necessity drives us as human beings.

I'm not quite sure I answered your question, but this is where your post led my brain today.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Ah, you know, I'm not really looking for the answer. I just enjoy other people's input ;-)

I very much agree with you that magic is more than just a replacement for machinery etc. I just used it as an example to elaborate my question/problem with the whole concept of magical powers: It's supposed to be "normal" for witches and wizards to use magic instead of machinery, but the use is highly restricted (not allowed for: underage, school drop-outs, in-presence-of-Muggles etc.). But even these witches and wizards who are not allowed to use magic (Hagrid, officially) define themselves through magic. So, magic is part of what they are, even though they don't really use it. - Which is why I think that losing the ability to perform magic must be a more substantial tragedy for witches and wizards than using the remote control is for Muggles (even though the latter one is a bitch). It takes away part of who they are. And yet, it seems that loss of magical powers can occur quite easily - see Tonks in HBP.

Like losing your sight, or hearing - or an arm.

I agree. And this is why I was wondering about the impact. Because if the loss of magic - like Tonks' metamorphing abilities - can be compared with losing a sense, it is a very severe one. But Tonks' loss was caused by, basically, unhappiness. So, you know, this would mean that witches and wizards are very fragile indeed: They rely on magical powers like we rely on our senses, but they are always in danger of losing them at any time due to emotional distress. Now, this is why I was wondering about the psychological impact. - Muggles might lose their eyesight, i.e. a sense, which causes depressions, but witches and wizards might become depressed, which causes the loss of their magical powers, i.e. a sense.

Oh, and I'm totally with you on the public transport issue! I, too, always take the car, even if it means that a) I've got to spend a fortune on petrol and b) can't drink.

[springsmutfairy.livejournal.com]

Well, for "muggles", depression can cause the same kinds of losses that Tonks' did for her. Depression, in general terms, deprives us of our ability to function normally - can't eat, can't sleep, (or sleep too much/lethargy or overeat), can't, well, can't cope with life - even simple things.

Tonks lost her "morphing" abilities, but she didn't lose her magic - she was still able to perform various spells, even complicated ones like the Patronus. Depression strikes each of us in different ways - causes different 'disabilities'. For Tonks, she lost her morphing abilities. We don't really know how depression affects other wizards (well, besides Sybil who went right for the cooking sherry! :-P)

I don't agree with you with regard to school drop outs being restricted. We've never seen any indication that you need a "license" to do magic. OWLS and NEWTs are exams, yes, but even for us, a person with only a 6th grade education still has the same basic rights as a PhD once they come of age.

It's not like being licensed to drive or perform medicine. It's an age-related issue only. Once a wizard comes of age, (s)he is an adult, and no longer under the auspices of the Under-Age Magic restrictions. Merope and her brother very likely (and most probably) did not go to Hogwarts or receive formal training. Her brother didn't get into trouble for using magic, he got into trouble with the ministry for using magic ON MUGGLES.

With Hagrid, Hagrid was expelled from school for a reason - he was accused of harbouring a creature that killed a student. Sort of the equivalent of manslaughter, and we've seen how the Wizarding "justice" system works. His wand was snapped as punishment, but I'm not so sure it was just because he was expelled. Any of-age wizard can get hold of a wand. (It's just harder if you're a wanted criminal. Heh.) But Hagrid, also being half-giant (and we know they're not kind or fair to "half breeds"), the severity of the charges (compounded with Myrtle's death) were probably to the point where he was specifically banned from doing magic, in lieu of Azkaban. We know that Hagrid had been there before he was sent back in CoS - he was terrified of the place and mentioned "not going back".

I really think Dumbledore made a deal - Hagrid's release in exchange for a promise that he not "do magic" (or perhaps not own or carry a wand -probably more likely), and Dumbledore would...be the magical equivalent of his parole officer - take custody of him. So I think Hagrid's situation was very different from other underage wizards. His sentence wasn't revoked when he came of age. He tells Harry "strictly speaking, I'm not supposed ter do magic" because he was expelled, but I really don't think he was telling the "whole" truth there.

Restricting the use of magic in underage wizards is a protection issue, (for adults AND children!) in the same vein as our laws for age of consent for sex, drinking, and laws where you can't apply for a driver's license until a certain age.

I still wonder just how the ministry "keeps tabs" - on underagers (there were young kids using magic at the Q World Cup), on various uses of magic (how would they arbitrarily know someone splinched - does an alarm go off or does the splinched wizard need to call for help?) and the like. See, THAT would be an interesting tidbit of information for her to give us - else we can create our own "rules" and means for that. Which, of course, we do.

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

And of course, that was me signed in under the ss account. *headdesk*

[soawen.livejournal.com]

Ah, you always have the most interesting posts (only they make me think, dammit! How can you do that to me?). I agree with your privileges of birth-analogy, but I think there is one more layer:

Magic is powerful, if unstable. Unstable, powerful things must be contained/controlled for the benefit of us all. Enter the Ministry with their regulations, laws, and control (how fast was it again Harry got a letter re:Dobby's magic?).

Over time, it would be easy to fall into the "it's for their own good, not just because we like the rush of power wheee"-trap bolstered by "that's what we do and what we've always done".

This does not negate the need for preventing people from turning everyone into plastic penguins in a fit of rage, but it could add a set of unnecessary laws simply because of habit and open for the temptation of being the one(s) to control all that power, giving them a reason to prevent any change.

A such construction on top of the need of preventing a plague of unwilling penguins makes magic the sole defining ability for those who have it, no matter how little they have. The potential is all that is needed to categorize them.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm evil that way.

Unstable, powerful things must be contained/controlled

Yes, and I'm wondering in how far, by controlling people's magical powers, the rules and regulations control the individuum. - Because magic is such an integral part of a witch or wizard. So, to use midnitemaraud_r's analogy, this is a bit like controlling the way people are using their senses. In a way, despite the fact that magical power is what defines them, witches and wizards are very aware of it. Which is what made me think, because we usually are not that aware of things that are natural to us.

Can I just say that the "plague of unwilling penguins" really made me laugh?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...perhaps the problem is we tend to think about all or nothing, at least in questions about people like Tonks. If she were a human who were depressed, for instance, she might lose many of her basic skills. Her illness would make it hard for her to concentrate or work. But would we, if she were a writer, for instance, consider her to have "lost" her talent, or just understand that because she is ill she can't do many of the things she's physically equipped to do?

In HP there's also this odd idea of a "fully-qualified" Wizard. Hagrid can still do magic, like when he tries to turn Dudley into a pig, but he's not qualified. He may be banned from buying a wand (knowing Hagrid I'm surprised he hasn't just gotten one somehow on the black market--hey, Sirius has one!) but he's got his own hidden in his umbrella and uses it. So he's more like an uneducated person, perhaps, who certainly sees himself as magic as anyone else, as presumably does Stan Shunpike though he doesn't seem qualified either, in terms of having a degree from Hogwarts.

In cases where someone *loses* their magic it seems like they've probably lost the will/ability to do lots of other things as well. Tonks is still a metamorphagus but currently can't do whatever she "does" to change herself, just as if she were a Muggle talented at something she might do poorly at it if she had some other physical problem, temporary or otherwise. She can still do magic in general--we see her do spells etc. But she's unable to muster whatever feeling it takes to change, I suppose much like Harry thinks he's "lost" the ability to produce a Patronus at the beginning of OotP because it's not working. The only people in the WW who seem to identify themselves as being without magic are Squibs.

This is kind of interesting to me in that many fanfics have characters "banished" to the Muggle world or losing their magic and I'm not sure that's quite how JKR's Wizards work.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

See, I find it quite difficult to wrap my mind around the concept of what it means to have magical powers in Rowling's universe, and even harder to articulate it. I guess what I'm really driving at is that witches and wizards defined themselves through their magical powers and looking down at Muggles who can't perform magic. People like Arthur view Muggles almost as a different species. So, the logical conclusion would be that magic is something entirel natural and intrinsic to witches and wizards. (In Muggle terms: white people viewing themselves as superior to other races. Or aristicrats viewing themselves as superior to commoners.) But on the other hand, they are very aware of their magical powers as something that is constantly controlled and regulated and comes and goes, depending on the circumstances - see Tonks. (In Muggles terms, the white-vs-other-races analogy does not apply here, because you can't just stop being white. Or an aristocrate.) So the thing that defines them, that constitutes the basis of their superiority, is not static. midnitemaraud_r compared magical powers to senses and their loss (or reduction) to the loss of an eye/limb/etc., and if it is so, than the whole circle of depression and - for lack of a better word - illness is the exact opposite than for Muggles: Muggles might lose the use of a sense (e.g. their eyesight) and suffer depressions as a result, while witches and wizards might lose the use of their powers as a result of depressions. This would make them rather emotionally fragile.

And yeah, the "fully qualified" sounds like being a witch or wizard was an occupation rather than anything else. (I am fully prepared to contribute a major part of this confusion to Rowling and her approach to magic, but it's fun to speculate anyway.) However, it is obvious that it is much more than just a skill that can be acquired thanks to a certain predisposition. A poorly skilled witch or wizard is still one. And I also wonder how the whole process of being-kicked-out-of-Hogwarts works: because if Harry was kicked out of school, he would still retain the powers, which would make him rather more dangerous - because unable to control these powers - than if he remained under the school's control (lax though it may be).