![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
donnaimmaculataI'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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-23 03:10 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-23 07:20 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-23 07:23 pm (UTC)