![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Meme
1. Go into your LJ's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Not just the passing flings, but the ones that stood the test of time.
That somehow seems oddly fitting to me...
Then I've also been thinking, for some reason, about
This actually isn't in response to anything I've seen recently, but it popped into my head that more than once I've heard Hermione referred to as this in some way, and Scully was referred to as this all the time in XF. In both cases, this confuses and disturbs me. First off, what on earth does that mean? How does one character function as the moral center? It seems like what it means is that that character acts as a check upon others, like a conscience. But still, it's a very odd term--especially when you consider that both XF and HP exist in morally murky waters. Tolkien, by contrast, has a world that is mostly good (since we're with the good guys all the time) and he had a very specific moral point to make. Frodo is the character that most clearly demonstrates this moral point by sparing Gollum's life and that leading to the destruction of the ring, but I've never heard anyone refer to Frodo as the moral center of the universe--which is good, because I don't think he is. All the characters are moral and face different moral challenges, and I'm comfortable with many of them as role models of good people.
It's not that I'm Scully and Hermione have never shown moral judgment themselves or are bad people, but when people refer to them as the moral center what they seem to be saying for both of them is that they are female, judgmental and focused on authority. I mean...they are, aren't they? Both are admitted over-achievers and teacher's pets in their respective canons. Both are reluctant to break rules, but nevertheless are primarily known for their rule breaking for their chosen man of action (Mulder and Harry). My point is not that they are so bad in terms of morals but that I see really nothing in them that makes them particularly good models of morality as opposed to others. In XF in particular I thought Mulder (flawed as he was himself) showed a much stronger example of a moral person than Scully, possibly because he faced moral temptations as such and so obviously thought about them. And also, of course, that he showed the kind of compassion I associate with the foundation of real morality (as Tolkien did). And I don't think Ron is any slouch either when it comes to this area, despite often starting out farther behind.
What Scully and Hermione mostly bring up when they're acting as a conscience are *rules.* Hermione has the school rules, Scully has the Bible and the FBI rules. Both have basic rules of good behavior or sometimes an ideology for something like SPEW. Knowledge of these rules does not always mean a great perception or compassion (Hermione's cakes for Kreacher, for instance, are correct but also misguided at the same time). There are times when both these characters are faced with a situation and show themselves to make the exact wrong moral choice. Yes, Hermione scolds the twins for their pranks, but she's being a prefect, following school rules, not to mention getting to be bossy. She *loves* doing the kind of thing she's doing in that scene-she was doing it from day 1. Her defense isn't even as morally grounded as Harry's defense of Neville in the Rememberall scene, imo. The scene with Dorian offers more of a challenge: she floats the possibility of doing something to help Dorian Montague's recovery, bringing up the accepted code of good behavior that urges help in this kind of situation, but lets it go easily enough as well, choosing house loyalty (or whatever it is) over compassion or the correct moral thing to do. (So please, enough with the idea that she's somehow more Perfected!Lupin because she scolds the twins and he doesn't interfere with James' torturing Snape).
Her spells with the DA also point up how shaky her reasoning can be: when the boys are surprised at her using DE spells as a model for the coins she neatly counters that her spells are not bad in that they don't mark a person's skin, but then later it turns out oops! Yes they do. Only the mark the skin of those who deserve it and they don't even know they're getting their skin marked. This is an interesting choice, really, because if the DA members knew betraying the group would get them permanently marked it would act as a deterrent, and Hermione could always add a second spell that would alert her to the betrayal as well. But punishing the betrayer is apparently more important than protecting the group, and would anyone have actually agreed to join the group if they knew they were agreeing to this kind of bond? Probably not, for the same reason Hermione originally cites as making her different from the DEs.
Anyway, my point isn't that Hermione or Scully are so very bad within their universes, but to me both these characters seem like very easy targets for corruption because they're so sure of themselves morally while really not having a reason to be. This, I think, gets back to the basic question of authority in morality. I have had many a long discussion with religious people who have claimed that without an authority (often called God) who tells us what is right and wrong and punishes us when we do wrong, there is no morality. This makes no sense to me, for several reasons. One, if God saying something is moral makes it so, then you're just talking about the arbitrary whims of a particular super being and not right and wrong. If it's right and wrong then God must conform to it and not the other way around if he's to be called right. Second it suggests that religious people are only holding themselves back from, say, murdering their neighbor because God says it's wrong and they fear punishment. In my experience, I've never met a religious person who felt they had to go against what they felt was right in order to be pious. On the contrary, I think most people associate religion with inspiring them to be good people and so they naturally interpret religious teachings in a way that reads to them as moral. If a person has a problem with homosexuality they'll have no problem with the idea it sends people to hell; if someone can't see anything wrong with it they're more likely to see it as an example of loving your neighbor.
So to me a morality based on rules or authority is incredibly shaky and easy to manipulate. There were times on XF where I was shocked at how callous Scully could be. More importantly there's Orison, which she puts herself in danger from a serial killer because, iirc, she argues against him being executed. Now, she doesn't argue this based on morality exactly, but on the fact that her clock radio was wonky when she woke up and plus she heard a song on the radio twice she hadn't heard in a long time. God, she thinks, is speaking to her. So in the end when she ends up killing the guy (not in self-defense but more in judgment) she's stuck with her Bible trying to figure who was responsible for what action, God or the Devil. Now, I know that in some ways one could say that asking oneself whether a particular impulse comes from God or the Devil is basically the same as asking oneself if it's right or wrong. But the problems with that system were illustrated by the episode. Scully spends far too much time wondering if everyday things should be interpreted by her in some way (because why speak plainly when its only eternal torment in question?) when she would probably have done better thinking about what she was really feeling.
So again, my point isn't that these characters are horrible people, but that it's very strange to look at them as being somehow elevated morally above other characters, even when they represent the author's views (after all, do we consider CC or JKR the moral center of our universe?). It's especially strange to mistake what these two characters are in terms of being teacher's pets (even without any teacher present, they are), with advanced moral understanding when often the opposite is true. (We should also not mistake something like courage or protectiveness for ones friends for advanced moral understanding.) A reliance on rules or punishment/reward is often a sign of a lack of moral development--most kids start off being rewarded and punished but the goal is to make them understand right and wrong. Wanting to follow school rules is not necessarily a sign of being a good person, anymore than writing long essays and doing well on scored tests is necessarily a sign of being an intellectual. For me both Scully and Hermione often demonstrate these differences, which is not a bad thing, unless you mistake it for something it's not.
Oh, and speaking of morality, I see Virginia has decided to opt out of it entirely.
1. Go into your LJ's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
Not just the passing flings, but the ones that stood the test of time.
That somehow seems oddly fitting to me...
Then I've also been thinking, for some reason, about
This actually isn't in response to anything I've seen recently, but it popped into my head that more than once I've heard Hermione referred to as this in some way, and Scully was referred to as this all the time in XF. In both cases, this confuses and disturbs me. First off, what on earth does that mean? How does one character function as the moral center? It seems like what it means is that that character acts as a check upon others, like a conscience. But still, it's a very odd term--especially when you consider that both XF and HP exist in morally murky waters. Tolkien, by contrast, has a world that is mostly good (since we're with the good guys all the time) and he had a very specific moral point to make. Frodo is the character that most clearly demonstrates this moral point by sparing Gollum's life and that leading to the destruction of the ring, but I've never heard anyone refer to Frodo as the moral center of the universe--which is good, because I don't think he is. All the characters are moral and face different moral challenges, and I'm comfortable with many of them as role models of good people.
It's not that I'm Scully and Hermione have never shown moral judgment themselves or are bad people, but when people refer to them as the moral center what they seem to be saying for both of them is that they are female, judgmental and focused on authority. I mean...they are, aren't they? Both are admitted over-achievers and teacher's pets in their respective canons. Both are reluctant to break rules, but nevertheless are primarily known for their rule breaking for their chosen man of action (Mulder and Harry). My point is not that they are so bad in terms of morals but that I see really nothing in them that makes them particularly good models of morality as opposed to others. In XF in particular I thought Mulder (flawed as he was himself) showed a much stronger example of a moral person than Scully, possibly because he faced moral temptations as such and so obviously thought about them. And also, of course, that he showed the kind of compassion I associate with the foundation of real morality (as Tolkien did). And I don't think Ron is any slouch either when it comes to this area, despite often starting out farther behind.
What Scully and Hermione mostly bring up when they're acting as a conscience are *rules.* Hermione has the school rules, Scully has the Bible and the FBI rules. Both have basic rules of good behavior or sometimes an ideology for something like SPEW. Knowledge of these rules does not always mean a great perception or compassion (Hermione's cakes for Kreacher, for instance, are correct but also misguided at the same time). There are times when both these characters are faced with a situation and show themselves to make the exact wrong moral choice. Yes, Hermione scolds the twins for their pranks, but she's being a prefect, following school rules, not to mention getting to be bossy. She *loves* doing the kind of thing she's doing in that scene-she was doing it from day 1. Her defense isn't even as morally grounded as Harry's defense of Neville in the Rememberall scene, imo. The scene with Dorian offers more of a challenge: she floats the possibility of doing something to help Dorian Montague's recovery, bringing up the accepted code of good behavior that urges help in this kind of situation, but lets it go easily enough as well, choosing house loyalty (or whatever it is) over compassion or the correct moral thing to do. (So please, enough with the idea that she's somehow more Perfected!Lupin because she scolds the twins and he doesn't interfere with James' torturing Snape).
Her spells with the DA also point up how shaky her reasoning can be: when the boys are surprised at her using DE spells as a model for the coins she neatly counters that her spells are not bad in that they don't mark a person's skin, but then later it turns out oops! Yes they do. Only the mark the skin of those who deserve it and they don't even know they're getting their skin marked. This is an interesting choice, really, because if the DA members knew betraying the group would get them permanently marked it would act as a deterrent, and Hermione could always add a second spell that would alert her to the betrayal as well. But punishing the betrayer is apparently more important than protecting the group, and would anyone have actually agreed to join the group if they knew they were agreeing to this kind of bond? Probably not, for the same reason Hermione originally cites as making her different from the DEs.
Anyway, my point isn't that Hermione or Scully are so very bad within their universes, but to me both these characters seem like very easy targets for corruption because they're so sure of themselves morally while really not having a reason to be. This, I think, gets back to the basic question of authority in morality. I have had many a long discussion with religious people who have claimed that without an authority (often called God) who tells us what is right and wrong and punishes us when we do wrong, there is no morality. This makes no sense to me, for several reasons. One, if God saying something is moral makes it so, then you're just talking about the arbitrary whims of a particular super being and not right and wrong. If it's right and wrong then God must conform to it and not the other way around if he's to be called right. Second it suggests that religious people are only holding themselves back from, say, murdering their neighbor because God says it's wrong and they fear punishment. In my experience, I've never met a religious person who felt they had to go against what they felt was right in order to be pious. On the contrary, I think most people associate religion with inspiring them to be good people and so they naturally interpret religious teachings in a way that reads to them as moral. If a person has a problem with homosexuality they'll have no problem with the idea it sends people to hell; if someone can't see anything wrong with it they're more likely to see it as an example of loving your neighbor.
So to me a morality based on rules or authority is incredibly shaky and easy to manipulate. There were times on XF where I was shocked at how callous Scully could be. More importantly there's Orison, which she puts herself in danger from a serial killer because, iirc, she argues against him being executed. Now, she doesn't argue this based on morality exactly, but on the fact that her clock radio was wonky when she woke up and plus she heard a song on the radio twice she hadn't heard in a long time. God, she thinks, is speaking to her. So in the end when she ends up killing the guy (not in self-defense but more in judgment) she's stuck with her Bible trying to figure who was responsible for what action, God or the Devil. Now, I know that in some ways one could say that asking oneself whether a particular impulse comes from God or the Devil is basically the same as asking oneself if it's right or wrong. But the problems with that system were illustrated by the episode. Scully spends far too much time wondering if everyday things should be interpreted by her in some way (because why speak plainly when its only eternal torment in question?) when she would probably have done better thinking about what she was really feeling.
So again, my point isn't that these characters are horrible people, but that it's very strange to look at them as being somehow elevated morally above other characters, even when they represent the author's views (after all, do we consider CC or JKR the moral center of our universe?). It's especially strange to mistake what these two characters are in terms of being teacher's pets (even without any teacher present, they are), with advanced moral understanding when often the opposite is true. (We should also not mistake something like courage or protectiveness for ones friends for advanced moral understanding.) A reliance on rules or punishment/reward is often a sign of a lack of moral development--most kids start off being rewarded and punished but the goal is to make them understand right and wrong. Wanting to follow school rules is not necessarily a sign of being a good person, anymore than writing long essays and doing well on scored tests is necessarily a sign of being an intellectual. For me both Scully and Hermione often demonstrate these differences, which is not a bad thing, unless you mistake it for something it's not.
Oh, and speaking of morality, I see Virginia has decided to opt out of it entirely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Oh, it makes a lot of sense! :-)
And yes again on the balances that Scully and Mulder give each other. I've always been drawn to pairs that balance each other and seem to form a sort of completed system. Scully and Mulder are one--Frodo and Sam are obviously another. I wonder if it's the fact that they are male and female that leads people to want to play down the balance and make Scully more of a simple touchstone for Mulder who needs none herself, while also making Mulder always active instead of being able to just inspire someone. What I love about Frodo and Sam is the way the two of them represent both sides that are needed for real compassion: Frodo is sacrificing everything for everyone. His goal is destroying the ring, because everything is lost if that isn't done. He obviously sacrifices himself, Sam's life is risked as well. But then there's Sam who is focused completely on this one person, holding Frodo's welfare above the entire world when he makes his choice.
So between the two of them you have this wonderful lesson for compassion. Frodo provides the needs of the man angle, but is kept from becoming too cold by Sam's love of the one. And Sam devotes himself to this one person but is kept from becoming just soft and indulgent by Frodo's focus on the ring.
It's strange, but in my experience the moment either character (Scully, Mulder,Frodo or Sam) starts becoming dangerous is when people decide they are the most moral, the one whose way is the only way.
From:
no subject
Isn't this when everyone starts being dangerous? It starts as the path to what is right and becomes the path to self-righteousness and ends in hate.
From:
no subject