House Elves & Hermione

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 14726

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:
> 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)?  
> 

Well, I'm not saying that elves should be mistreated or that their 
attachment should be abused. They should have their rights. All I am 
saying is that elf-master is not the same relationship as human slave-
master. It's true that "inherent" arguments were made about 
human "races" with obvious political purposes, but we're talking 
about an imaginary world and an imaginary species. It seems to me 
that, according to the books, house elves do have an innate tendency 
to serve human beings (after all, they are HOUSE elves, and houses 
are human habitats). Since humans do not have a similar tendency to 
serve elves, I don't see how a relationship of equality can exist. 
One is INHERENTLY the servant, the other is INHERENTLY the master. 
The equality of human beings rests precisely on the premise that 
there are no such INHERENT tendencies (no race or group are "born" 
servile, for instance).

> 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.

I'm not at all sure about this. George also says it. Hagrid said 
that "it'd be doing them an unkindness." More importantly still, the 
elves in the kitchen do behave in that way. They are very clearly 
horrified at Hermione's suggestions and talk of rights. So, although 
you might say "cultural conditioning", Ron's comment is more or less 
true, as far as the reality he knows goes. 

> -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.
> 
Well, but house elves are not human. That attitude is demeaning (and 
therefore dehumanizing) when dealing with humans. Is it dehumanizing 
to say that the mark of a good dog is it's obedience (I'm NOT 
equating elves and dogs!)? 
In our world there just don't happen to be such creatures as house 
elves (intelligent non-humans that are inherently attached to 
humans). Therefore, we have never had to deal with the moral problems 
arising from a relationship with them (the moral problem for us was 
to stop thinking in such a way of other human beings.) I think that 
these moral problems are different from the moral problems arising 
from human-human realtionship, and so I don't think that the racist 
(or male-chauvinist) similes are appropriate here.

I think also that the "mudblood"/"pureblood" ideology is hateful and 
intense enough to fill the racism slot in the story.

Naama, who promises that she would treat her house elf with great 
respect, pay it a salary, and even allow it to call her a barmy old 
codger.. : )