Well for one thing, we don't read/hear much of anything about Bellatrix prior to her imprisonment in Azkaban, and absolutely NOTHING about her prior to her joining the DEs.
IOW, we know she participated in torturing the Longbottoms, so that shows that at least at that moment in time she wasn't a very nice person. But the reader of the Potter stories needs to keep in mind that the contemporary Bellatrix shown in the narrative is not only a product of her time as a DE, but as a prisoner of the state subject to torture by Dementors.
Nothing is ever mentioned regarding Bellatrix as a child; she may have pulled wings off of flies and set fire to owls when she was eight, or she may have been a dutiful daughter and concientious nanny to her younger sisters. We just don't know.
Interestingly enough, just yesterday I watched a documentary about the Green River Killer, who has the dubious distinction of being the most prolific serial killer in the United States.
The guy was seemingly as normal as normal could be, and those close to him -- including his wife and stepdaughters -- thought he was a wonderful, gentle, conscientious man. The cops who eventually arrested him were amazed that such a schmuck could actually be so evil.
And in the documentary there was much discussion over the "nature-versus-nurture" argument as to how and why someone like the killer ended up being so evil. The guy DID have strange parents, a mother who was sexually provocative if not outright sexually abusive, and a father who was at the very least a strict physical disciplinarian, but again perhaps not outright or overtly physically abusive.
But the killer was the middle child of a family that included five boys (and an unmentioned number of sisters)...IOW, there were quite a few siblings who grew up in the same environment, but none of them became killers.
So obviously "nurture" (or lack thereof) isn't the whole story...but neither can "nature", e.g. the argument that there is a certain gene or combination of DNA that predisposes someone to evil. Perhaps it is a little of both...two children are born into an abusive family, but only one has the "evil gene". That sibling will be more likely to grow up to do evil deeds, while the other sibling will not.
Interestingly enough, I happened across some signage advertising a talk given last week at my school about murderers and the like. I didn't actually go to the talk, but from the signs it appeared that the speaker would be discussing a theory that people in general are inherently evil, and that it has to be trained out of us or we'll naturally go on to commit murder (or something). The theory came from a psychiatrist in criminal justice, too.
Rings my BS bells. Babies are naturally empathetic. And I doubt humans could have lasted as a social species all these generations without evolving some natural inclination to sociability. Either this person has issues with empathy s/he is projecting to everyone else or s/he is burnt out from too much interaction with psychiatric patients.
Well it is psychiatrists who tend to say things like "everyone is neurotic," which they would get from their constantly interacting with neurotic people to begin with.
Even trained soldiers can't always nerve themselves to shoot each other, so we can't be that inherently evil if even empathy-killing training doesn't always take. Maybe the more complex kinds of empathy need practice, sure (the "how would you feel if..." and "that funny-looking insect has pain receptors too" kind). And kids have poorer impulse control. But that isn't the same as needing to be trained out of being natural-born killers.
it appeared that the speaker would be discussing a theory that people in general are inherently evil, and that it has to be trained out of us or we'll naturally go on to commit murder (or something). The theory came from a psychiatrist in criminal justice, too.
It sounds like the Biblical concept of original sin repackaged with pseudo-scientific jargon and rationalizations. If people were naturally evil and dangerous, the violent crime rates would be a lot higher than they are. Most people would be attacking and attempting to kill each other. As it stands now, most of us are not doing that. It's important to remember that people are herd animals. Because our survival is dependent on each other, we're naturally inclined to care for and support each other as a means of keeping our species alive, if for no other reason.
That's not even to consider the mounting body of scientific research that shows many if not most of the higher mammals show empathy and consideration, not just for members of their own species, but other species as well. Empathy and compassion would not be so prevalent across species if they did not have survival advantages. I tend to agree with Oryx that this person has become jaded from his/her experiences with dangerous people. It sounds like he/she has fallen into that abyss Nietzsche talked about.
And kids in the same family can still have totally different experiences of what it's like to live in that family. Plus there are outside influences (maybe only one kid gets molested by the soccer coach). So you can have a combination of general environment, specific-to-child environment, genes predisposing the kid toward lack of empathy and/or violence, some other neurological factor (who knows what else might influence the brain), and choice. And probably other factors I haven't thought of.
IOW, we know she participated in torturing the Longbottoms, so that shows that at least at that moment in time she wasn't a very nice person. But the reader of the Potter stories needs to keep in mind that the contemporary Bellatrix shown in the narrative is not only a product of her time as a DE, but as a prisoner of the state subject to torture by Dementors.
Nothing is ever mentioned regarding Bellatrix as a child; she may have pulled wings off of flies and set fire to owls when she was eight, or she may have been a dutiful daughter and concientious nanny to her younger sisters. We just don't know.
Interestingly enough, just yesterday I watched a documentary about the Green River Killer, who has the dubious distinction of being the most prolific serial killer in the United States.
The guy was seemingly as normal as normal could be, and those close to him -- including his wife and stepdaughters -- thought he was a wonderful, gentle, conscientious man. The cops who eventually arrested him were amazed that such a schmuck could actually be so evil.
And in the documentary there was much discussion over the "nature-versus-nurture" argument as to how and why someone like the killer ended up being so evil. The guy DID have strange parents, a mother who was sexually provocative if not outright sexually abusive, and a father who was at the very least a strict physical disciplinarian, but again perhaps not outright or overtly physically abusive.
But the killer was the middle child of a family that included five boys (and an unmentioned number of sisters)...IOW, there were quite a few siblings who grew up in the same environment, but none of them became killers.
So obviously "nurture" (or lack thereof) isn't the whole story...but neither can "nature", e.g. the argument that there is a certain gene or combination of DNA that predisposes someone to evil. Perhaps it is a little of both...two children are born into an abusive family, but only one has the "evil gene". That sibling will be more likely to grow up to do evil deeds, while the other sibling will not.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It sounds like the Biblical concept of original sin repackaged with pseudo-scientific jargon and rationalizations. If people were naturally evil and dangerous, the violent crime rates would be a lot higher than they are. Most people would be attacking and attempting to kill each other. As it stands now, most of us are not doing that. It's important to remember that people are herd animals. Because our survival is dependent on each other, we're naturally inclined to care for and support each other as a means of keeping our species alive, if for no other reason.
That's not even to consider the mounting body of scientific research that shows many if not most of the higher mammals show empathy and consideration, not just for members of their own species, but other species as well. Empathy and compassion would not be so prevalent across species if they did not have survival advantages. I tend to agree with Oryx that this person has become jaded from his/her experiences with dangerous people. It sounds like he/she has fallen into that abyss Nietzsche talked about.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment