House Elves & Hermione

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 14765

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 (I know you would, Naama! <smile>), wrote:

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).

Inherent means inborn.  We have no reason to think that house-elves 
are *born* to serve humans, any more than humans are born to serve 
house-elves.  The reason could well lie in history, just as the 
reasons whites enslaved blacks and the opposite has rarely been seen 
are contingent and based on the accidents of human history.

Then, too, there are many possible forms of symbiosis that could have 
arisen but did not.  Perhaps the elves would never be happy with a 
solution that didn't include their serving humans (as Hagrid says).  
That's fine!  But it could be a kind of service that, instead of the 
kind that currently exists, is dignified, even fully equal--after 
all, there might be ways humans can serve elves in turn.  

As for the term "house-elf," it does indeed assume that that's where 
the elves belong.  But that might be a term that arose out of these 
centuries of inequality, not the house-elves' term of choice for 
themselves (at least the visionaries like Dobby). 

> 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. 

I like Gwen's phrase:  "there are more equitable arrangements to be 
made than willing slavery."  Most of the elves are themselves 
horrified by the thought of change--undoubtedly true.  The question 
is, can there be a third path?  An alternative to the false choices 
of "put up with the way things are" or "be an outcast, like Dobby"?  
I dislike Ron's comment so much (AND George's; Hagrid's is a bit 
different) because it refuses to envision a third way:  a system in 
which the elves are happy *and* free.  

Harry is horrified by Dobby's predicament, as well he should be--this 
is someone who beats his head against the wall when he even thinks of 
criticizing his master.  How can anyone say of him or any other 
elf, "He likes it"?  He might not see a better alternative, but that 
doesn't mean he likes it.  A responsible attitude would acknowledge 
that he hates his servitude and try to suggest alternatives that he 
would prefer.

> 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.

Very true; this is a situation with no exact parallel in our lives.  
But surely we are meant to draw parallels between this issue and the 
civil rights issues that face us.  Otherwise we couldn't draw a 
parallel between anti-Muggle sentiment and our forms of racism 
either.  After all, Muggles ARE different from wizards, in a way that 
you can't say of whites and blacks, Jews and Christians, etc. etc.  
So why do we say Draco is racist/prejudiced, instead of saying "well, 
wizards might really be superior to Muggles"?  We do draw the 
parallel, and I believe we are meant to.  The same with the house-
elf/wizard relationship.
 
> I think also that the "mudblood"/"pureblood" ideology is hateful 
and 
> intense enough to fill the racism slot in the story.
> 

No doubt.  But I really don't think JKR thought so....  Well, there's 
no way to know.  We all see the story through our own lenses, and 
anti-racism is a lens I try to use a lot.  When Amos Diggory 
says "Elf!" with that terrible disdain, I hear echoes of white men 
calling black men "Boy!" just because they can.

Amy Z