House Elves (again)

[Hillman, Lee]

No: HPFGUIDX 26785

Greetings from Gwen!

Well, I've been staying quiet on this thread up until now, but I can't keep
my peace anymore. Of course, I would get involved _after_ having packed up
the books for my office move tomorrow.... but I'll do my best to get it
right without the sources.

Barb wrote:
> Gracious, I didn't know what I was starting with the post about 
> wizarding caste system.  I must disagree, however, with the response 
> that said the theory wasn't valid because house-elves aren't human.  
> Has everyone read Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them?  Many non-
> human magical creatures are said to participate with wizards in 
> working out who has what status in the magical world.  

Yes. The two groups mentioned are, as I recall, Centaurs and Merpeople.
These are both species which as a rule have little to no contact with human
beings, the one living in enclaves in the forest and who "keep themselves to
themselves, mostly" (Hagrid, PS/SS), and the other living underwater. In
both cases, they were invited to be beings but DECIDED to be classified as
beasts. House Elves, however, are included as beings, and there are offices
at the Ministry designed to handle relationships with them, however
ineffective they might be. 

However, I continue to disagree with a straight allegory to slavery for
precisely that reason: House elves, as they have been presented, Are. Not.
Human. Just because JKR uses other species as object lessons, does it
necessarily follow that ALL other beings whom we encounter also serve as an
allegory to a human social issue? (Boring and obvious, IMO, if that's all
she's doing.)


Ethanol continued:
> 
> First, I´d like to point out, that I agree with Hermione. The way the 
> house elves live, is slavery. 
> <snip>
> There have been many systems in history that did not obviously look 
> like slavery - feudal systems for example. In other systems, slaves 
> were treated with respect and as a part of the family - Greek tutors 
> in ancient Rome for example. That does not change however, 
> that if you 
> are forced to stay - you are essiantially a slave. And that, in my 
> very humble opinion - is wrong.
> 

I feel this should go without saying, but it seems to need stating: I'm
seeing a propensity to conclude that people who say Hermione is wrong to
jump in to the house-elf debate also condone slavery. I don't think that's
the case. I don't think Amy Z or anyone else who has voiced an anti-Hermione
opinion (or even elves aren't human opinion) thinks slavery is a Good Thing.
I certainly don't. You are correct: slavery is wrong. The way house-elves
are treated is by and large deplorable. They are not given rights. They
deserve breaks and holidays and all the privileges you listed. 

HOWEVER, I do not think it necessarily follows that the house-elves have any
wish for OCCUPATION other than what they are doing. They may wish for and
subsequently fear gaining the respect of humans, but that does not
necessarily equate to "freedom." For example, I have postulated both in my
fic and on this list that there may be a condition of being a house-elf that
requires occupation in service of some kind for survival. There are
creatures in lore who must serve to survive, or at least to maintain their
powers. That does not necessarily mean they must be slaves, that is, with no
rights or respect afforded to them. But what if--setting aside all social
commentary and ethical allegory and everything else--what if just maybe a
House-elf who does _not_ selflessly contribute to the well-being of some
other creature loses his powers over time? What if his magical ability and
existence are inextricably tied to the self-sacrificing acts which he
commits in the service of others? It's possible. 

Now, what if we accepted that hypothesis for the moment and tried to place a
backdrop of social commentary against it. Could the message then be that
humans are in fact only as powerful as they are valued? Could it be that
human lovingkindness, that human self-sacrifice for the benefit of others,
is the key to living meaningful lives and making the world a better place?
Could it possibly be that it is by giving of ourselves, with no expectation
of reward or payment, that we truly find enlightenment?

Or is that too subtle? 

Let's see if it can be borne out in Ethanol's other points.

> Second: Hermione´s plight has not been welcomed by the elves or the 
> wizards/witches. 
> When Dobby 
> holds his "speaches" the other elves don´t ridicule him. They fall 
> silent and send Harry, Ron and Hermione off. They are afraid.
> 

If house-elves must be engaged in some sort of service, and paying them
upsets the order of things such that it might be impossible to find such
service, which would potentially threaten their very existence, does it not
follow that they might be afraid of this possibility? Does it not follow
that they might reject it out of hand, accepting the devil they know before
one they do not? Doesn't it also follow that Dobby is clearly progressive
and that the others, who are lucky enough not to have a cruel master, feel
no need to change their lives, seeing that they have all the power and
amenities they need?

> Third: for a freedom movement to develop, something must happen. For 
> example, the conditions - acceptable if barely so - turn worse. If 
> your life is threatened, you act because punishment won´t hurt you if 
> you are dead. Another example is the age old tradition of a martyr 
> whose dead rattles those who remain.

Yes, something must happen, and we might still see a minor revolt on the
part of those elves who decide to serve a higher purpose than that of their
masters. They may decide that the "selfless service to good" is more
important than the family they are assigned to.

Again, this is not to condone slavery or the disrespect of any people based
on a characteristic that makes them different. It is merely an exploration
of the various kinds of possibilities available when dealing with a species
that is more-or-less made up and definitely not the same as us. 

It's also possible that, for example, there is a higher magic at work which
punishes house-elves who disobey. Whether that source is from wizards or
some other, older, more powerful order of things, it may be that some type
of curse affects the family of house-elves who go against their master's
express wishes. Thus, Dobby chose to punish himself physically in a possible
effort to avoid a deeper curse lying on him and his loved ones, or even to
forestall greater repercussions. Though he does indicate in CoS that Malfoy
does not know about his forays to Harry and Hogwarts, there is still an
indication that house-elves understand the implicit intentions of their
masters. 

> House elves are often 
> underestimated. They 
> make fine allies: they are loyal, helpful, clever, tiny (get by 
> without being noticed), are magical (at least in a small scope, 
> possible more) - and they are everywhere! 

Also true, but I believe that, for the reasons I listed above, there are
some natural limitations on what they can do and when/how they can do it.
Again, not because I think it's right to oppress others, but because of the
freedom that an author faces when she has such ingenious plot devices at her
fingertips. The elves, IMO, are important, and they will be allies, but they
have no wish to jeopardize their own existence--they'll need to find ways to
assure themselves of a. a future, and b. minimal negative repercussions,
before they can change allegiance.

I do think Dobby might be a casualty, but I don't know that that is what
will convince the house-elves to risk themselves in the fight. If anything,
I think we will see their influence in subtle ways, at least up until the
final battle.

Preparing for the backlash,

Gwen