House Elves (again)

[b.jebenstreit at biologie.uni-bielefeld.de]

No: HPFGUIDX 26816

Gwen wrote:
> 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 did not mean to imply that. If I did (without meaning to) I *am* sorry.

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."

I can imagine, that even at the end of the series, the house elf will
still opt to keep their occupation. But under different conditions.

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.

Like the Brownies, as Rowenna has pointed out. But if being paid would
rob the elves of their powers - why would Dobby accept pay? He might
be weird and strange (from our point of view). But I can´t see him as
dumb enough to accept pay, if that would diminish his powers. Though I
admit that among elves there might exist a superstitious belief "if
you accept pay you will lose your powers!" that elves like Dobby do
not believe in.

> 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.

I think I can see your point. You mean to say: the elves are not
humans, so we have no right to judge their behaviour by human
standards. If they wish to serve - let them serve. If they do not
object to mistreat (of either themselves or other) - it is their right
to make this dicision. (Sorry, if I misunderstood you.)
If this was pure science fiction - with no human group involved - I
guess I could agree. If both the powerful and the powerless would
operate from non-human values and convictions, I *might* accept it, if
the powerless wish to remain in their position. (Though it would still
bother be.)
The thing that bothers me is: the powerful in this case are humans.
The elves - from their cultural point of view - might be inclined to
accept their way of live. But it bothers me that human wizards and
witches accept it, too. Neither the Malfoys nor the Weasleys appear to
think that the way the elves are treated is wrong.
I admit, I only read the German translation of GoF. Translated back to
English, this is what Ron said: "They like to be enslaved!" I will
check with the original - but I would suppose it says "enslaved", too.
So the wizards and witches do know, that the elves are slaves. Elves
might *like* to be enslaved. But my point is: humans should not accept
slavery - even if the persons in question claim to like it.
Maybe I can make my point clearer with an analogy. I have a younger
brother. Siblings that are much younger than the older brother or
sister often have a phase - usually a short one - in which they adore
their older siblings. They follow them around, try to copy their
behaviour. In that phase, it is really easy to *convince* them to do
chores for them: do the shopping, the laundry, clean the room. They
might even offer to do it on their own, just to be close to their
sibling. If you ask them -they think it is great! Brother or sister is
his or her heroe! Does that make the older ones behaviour all right?
No, it does not. As parents are bound to point out to the older.
(Before you ask: I discouraged my brother´s behaviour before our
parents had to intervene.)
The behaviour of the wizards and witches remains me of other cases of
siblings that I have seen, in which the older had no qualms about
using the younger ones willingness to serve. I think the older
siblings behaviour is morally wrong. In the same way I also think the
witches and wizards are wrong. And I admit frankly, that I might
believe that because of wishful thinking. Because I don´t want to see
the wizard´s/witche´s behaviour continued. Your milage may wary,
certainly. But from JKR´s statements, I think she sees it similarily.
We´ll have to wait for OoP to know.

> Preparing for the backlash

I do hope that was more constructive :-)

Awaiting counter arguements with interest,
Ethanol