House Elves & Hermione

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 14716

Naama wrote:

> There is an important difference between human slavery and elvish 
> bondage, and it is that elves are *magically bound* to their 
masters. 
> Whether an elf relishes his service or not, he cannot leave his 
> master unless his master frees him (by presenting him with clothes). 
> OTOH, however much a human slave may feel loyal to his master, there 
> is no inherent dominance bond between them. Who is the master of 
whom 
> is a matter of contigent economic, political, cultural 
circumstances.
> That's why, to my mind, the whole elvish issue is not really a 
racist 
> issue. 


I don't follow you.  Just as humans can use their superior firepower 
to subdue other humans into slavery *or refuse to abuse that power,* 
so wizards can use their power to subdue elves into slavery *or refuse 
to abuse that power.*  Dumbledore refuses, at least when a house-elf 
requests an equal relationship.  Other wizards happily defend the 
status quo.  Who is to say that the dominance of house-elves by 
wizards is the way things *ought* to be--that it's inherent (or even 
if it is inherent, that equality could not be just as valid an 
option)?  

Someone recently wrote (sorry, I have lost track):

>JKR makes it clear that she thinks Hermione's championship of 
liberation is misguided, but DUMBLEDORE is 
>quite willing to treat the house elves respectfully and cheerfully 
pays 
>Dobby. 

I don't think the message is that Hermione is misguided except in her 
overly simplistic approach.  Here are a few other views on 
house-elves, pro and con freedom, that suggest JKR strongly agrees 
with Hermione's intentions, if not her techniques:

-Dumbledore's
-Arthur's (I'm quoting from memory with all quotes, pardon my 
inaccuracy):  "I agree with you, Hermione.  But this isn't the time to 
discuss elf rights."
-Dobby's.  It is so condescending of Hagrid to say that he's a 
"weirdo" because unlike most house-elves, he wants freedom and a 
salary.  It's uncomfortably like people who pointed at "the good 
Negro" and said, "See, *he* isn't complaining--how come *you're* 
making such a stink?"  The ones who demand their rights are the 
weirdos--very convenient.

The defenders of the system don't come out looking too good:

-Ron's extremely feeble party line:  "They LIKE it.  They LIKE being 
enslaved."  This is so obviously untrue that JKR has to be mocking 
this attitude.
-Nick's dehumanizing description:  "That's the mark of a good 
house-elf, isn't it, that you don't know it's there?"  Ah, how 
true--the best servants don't intrude on your consciousness or your 
conscience.  They do all the work but you don't have to acknowledge 
their existence.

Hermione is young, and this is her first foray into the tangled issues 
of social justice.  She is learning that it isn't as simple as riding 
in on a white horse, not least because people participate in their own 
oppression.  Even the most downtrodden fear change (why shouldn't 
they?  many of us feel the devil you know is better than the devil you 
don't), and it's patronizing to tell them that they just don't know 
any better--even if they really don't have as much to fear from 
freedom as they imagine.  I think of workers who shun labor organizers 
because they're sure unions are Communist, or because they're afraid 
of losing what they have, meager though it is.  

But the fact that people defend the system that is unjust to them 
doesn't make it just, or mean others shouldn't change it.  Look at 
anti-feminist women from 100 years ago.  They were so sure that the 
right to vote would take away more than it could possibly give them.  
Were they right?  And even if you would say yes, would you think that 
ALL women should remain in a state of bondage just because some women 
(even most) thought bondage was preferable to freedom?  Thanks very 
much, but I'll take all the burdens of gender equality along with the 
advantages.  No way would I change places with a 19th-century woman.

I would be very annoyed with JKR if she dismissed Hermione's complaint 
simply because it is voiced in a naive and condescending way or 
because the house-elves themselves are nervous about changes in the 
system.  I don't think she does.  She makes it very clear that 
house-elves are oppressed and that their own complicity, while 
understandable and portrayed sympathetically, is not reason to decide 
that elf oppression is a non-problem.

On top of all the social commentary, I think the house-elves are a 
tremendous ally in the struggle against Voldemort, or could be if they 
were allowed/encouraged/coaxed to use their powerful magic for 
something more revolutionary than making terrific pastry.  

Amy Z

---------------------------------------------------------
    "We didn't give it to him because he's a Muggle!"
 said Fred indignantly.
    "No, we gave it to him because he's a great bullying
 git," said George.  "Isn't he, Harry?"
    "Yeah, he is, Mr. Weasley," said Harry earnestly.
                 --Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
----------------------------------------------------------