[HPforGrownups] Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1)

Tue May 28 01:35:46 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 39105

Hi everyone,
Although this post falls under the Phillip Nel
question on house-elfs, I felt compelled to respond to
Amanda's post (Message # 38149), which in turn was a
reply to my own post comparing aspects of house-elf
treatment-hereafter known as house-elfment for lack of
a better term-to slavery (Message # 38118).  This
gives me a chance to clarify and emphasize some
points, and hopefully answer some of Dr. Nel's
questions, albeit in a circumlocutory fashion.

Please note:
1)Given JKR's strong views on intolerance, I think
that it is possible to interpret the house-elf
experience as slavery.   
2)In this post I am specifically referring to the
enslavement of Africans by Europeans (which I believe
applies to my model), not slavery within Africa, and
not Christian slaves. 
3)Confusion with historical dates on slavery: unless
otherwise stated, I generally mean British colonial
slavery, (where slave economies were outposts of the
British Empire), as opposed to slavery in America. 
Britain passed the Abolition Act in 1834.  
4)I make reference to slavery as being mental, not
just physical/legal.  House-elfs are not slaves
because they "serve" wizards; they are slaves because
they are servile.  Slavery would not be an issue if
slaves believed they were free, or if masters believed
domination was unnecessary.  The oppressor and
oppressed both create the logic of slavery.  Part 2
will deal more with this. 
5)This is going to be a detour post, since I have to
touch on linguistics, Darwin and history.  If you're
not interested in wading through this morass, you may
scan the itemized summary at the bottom of this post. 
And then of course share your thoughts!  

I previously highlighted some aspects of house-elfment
that seem to point to slavery:

> 1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech
> patterns in GoF are extremely similar to the Black 
> American English of the 19th century, if there are 
> any linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a
> "yes, massa" and we're set.  Dobby's quasi-Gullah
> dialect is more notably pronounced in GoF than in 
> CoS.  It's interesting that in creating a voice for
> Dobby, JKR would use an idiom with such strong 
> connotations. Did anyone else spot this?

Amanda <editor at texas.net> replied:
> Actually, it reminded me of a creole. It seems
> entirely likely to me that house-elves have their 
> own language, and speak a creole when addressing
> humans. And the similarity to Black English is
> understandable--it also has creole roots. I didn't 
> think JKR was trying to make any kind of point with
> their speech, other than to pick a logical format
> that would make it sound foreign.

But, why would they speak a creole when addressing
wizards, as opposed to Standard English?  The goblins
speak their own language, but Griphook speaks perfect
English IIRC.  Isn't it important to consider *who*
traditionally spoke a creole?  Wittgenstein once
remarked, "the limits of my language mean the limits
of my world".  Language shapes the way you see and
interpret your world.  As a form of expression, it is
a means of defining yourself.   If you cannot
communicate in the established language, you are
severely disadvantaged.   

Historically, a creole, in contrast to a standard
language, emerged as a modified version of a dominant
language, spoken by those who had little or no access
to formal education, usually members of some
marginalized group.  "Creole" comes from the
Portuguese "crioulo" (with possible African origins),
which means home-born slave, and is usually but not
exclusively applied to Afro-Caribbean English.  A
creole still carries the stigma of being an uneducated
speech of the lower classes, having originated as a
slave dialect.

House-elfs probably speak creolized English because it
suitably reflects their oppressed position in Wizard
society, uneducated so that they may be controlled. 
This was my point.  Wouldn't JKR, who has studied
languages, be aware of the tension between standard
and creole, of this sociolinguistic barrier erected
between the upper/lower classes, the dominant and the
subjugated?  I think it very significant that she gave
house-elfs a basilect that can be easily connected to
a slave dialect.

On Dumbledore's attitudes to house-elfs:
> He doesn't seem to regard rigid enforcement of
> house-elf status as necessary to maintaining
> stability in the wizarding world.  That's a sign, to
> me, that house-elfs really don't need to be so 
> controlled.

Amanda:
> I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are*
> actively controlling them, at least not usually. The
> elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind
> themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits
> or contracts involving their status that we do not 
> know about.

Restricting their powerful magic and their freedom of
speech isn't controlling them?  Consider that the
"domestication" of the house-elf renders actual
physical control unnecessary.  They are binding
themselves because they are practicing
self-oppression. More on this later.  If Dumbledore
can pay and clothe house-elfs, and respect their
freedom of speech(this is the same egalitarian
Dumbledore who gave half-giants and sensitive
werewolves a second chance), I'm willing to bet the
house-elfs are also victims of prejudice.  

Amanda:
> I will propose again that the elves are not so much
> bound to a family or a human as to a place, and the
> bond is extended to the human that owns the
> place. Winky may be as much an extreme as Dobby, in
> her refusal to accept her dismissal and her 
> attachment to her former *people*, refusing to
become
> bonded with her new *place.* 

Sooooo, with Winky, JKR is portraying a victim of the
debilitating effects of...homesickness?  This is what
she created Winky for?  How edifying!

On defending house-elfment on the basis that
house-elfs belong to a different species I argued: 
> But, this was precisely the sort of argument used
> to justify African slavery in the first place.

Amanda: 
> This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not
> human" argument was used to justify slavery, in an 
> instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't
> mean that it's *not* true in the case of
> house-elves. They are another species. There is no 
> reason to assume their psychological needs are the 
> same as a human's.

I think you missed my point.  That house-elfs are
another species is not in dispute.  What is germane to
the house-elf/slave discussion is how slaves were
treated *when* they were believed to be another
species.  When slaves were regarded as inferior(NOT
human) the capacity for abuse was created and
sanctioned.  Can we prove that the house-elfs, who may
indeed have different psychological needs, are not
manipulated to the wizards' advantage precisely
because they are NOT human?

"Not like us" encourages the notion that nonhumans may
be treated unequally, as opposed to differently.  I am
not saying that house-elfs should be treated as
humans, but an inherent danger exists once it is
assumed that another group is not the same, i.e.
human, and this is understood to mean not equal.  Does
"non-humanness" open the door for abuse in the case of
the house-elfs?  Fair treatment was sorely lacking
when slaves were believed to be something other than
human.

Me:  
> It was the prevailing view at the time that blacks 
> were descended from the gorilla (their prominent 
> simian facial features were cited as evidence of 
> this link) and therefore not related to whites 
> (after all,Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't 
> published till a quarter century after the aboliton
> of slavery, and public acceptance isn't immediate).

Amanda: 
> Point of logic. If the Origin of the Species and
> evolutionary theory was not published until after 
> the abolition of slavery (in America, be specific),
> it could hardly have been the prevailing view that 
> blacks were descended from the gorilla. It would 
> never have occurred to anyone. They were regarded as
> an inferior race, but the "descended from" is not an
> accurate portrayal of the attitude of the time.

My statement was not clear.  It should read that
Africans were considered subhuman.  After Britain
abolished slavery (JKR is British, correct?), they
were treated no differently, because being legally
free did not cancel out the "fact" that they were not
human.  Darwin's assertion that man was a primate made
both blacks and whites human, because man(not just the
black man) and ape were related.  Master and slave
belonged to the same species, and so the argument that
Africans were not human was refuted.  A racist mind
would find this very hard to accept, hence one of the
reasons Darwin's views were resisted from the very
beginning.  Later it became acceptable to see whites
as the more advanced members of the species.    

Now, why would it not occur to anyone that blacks and
gorillas were related, just because Darwin hadn't been
published yet?  Are you assuming thoughts on evolution
began with Darwin?  It's quite logical given the fact
that simian features(found in all races actually) are
found in certain racial groups in Africa.  What would
have prevented a racist slave trader from calling an
African an ape?  The connection is easily (though
unwittingly) made without Darwin's help, thank you
very much, even though I misleadingly used Darwin's
terminology to express my point.

On the European rationalisation for slavery as a legal
institution, which may be comparable to the WW's
justification for House-elf treatment, I said:

> So someone came up with the perfectly brilliant,
> logical notion that [Africans] would make an ideal
> labour force because they had the stamina to 
> withstand a harsh tropical climate, once there were
> overseers to supervise them and keep them in line.

Amanda:
> No, they were cheap, easily available, and more
> resistant to European diseases than the Indians, who
> kept dying in droves.

How exactly are we disagreeing?  

Amanda:
> Also, don't forget that the white, mostly Christian
> slave-transporters were dealing with canny mostly 
> Islamic black slave-dealers in Africa. The latter
> presumably knew perfectly well that their
> merchandise was fully human, and  still chose to 
> deal in it. So you can't generalize
> slavery's origins to a belief that blacks were 
> subhuman, even if a large portion of the end market
> did believe this.

In order to justify enslavement, it was believed that
"blacks were naturally predisposed to manual labour." 
Now, what about them made them this way?  Well, they
weren't like the average British planter and his
family, they were something else.  How else to
convince yourself you belong to a civilized nation if
you would enslave your fellow man?  Answer: the
African was not your fellow man.  You can be civilized
while abusing another living thing because it is not
human.  What would be abuse in a human being's case
was simply different treatment for different
creatures, and in the WW, this may make aspects of
house-elfment acceptable.

Even after slavery was no longer economically viable,
were descendants of slaves able to do anything other
than field work for another century or so?  Were they
educated, allowed to vote?  Racism persisted, based on
this view of blacks as inferior.  African traders had
a different notion of slavery, which in no way excused
their actions, but I will deal with this later.  It
still stands: the slave in the New World, in Britain's
colonies, was not recognized as a man, and this made
maltreatment of another "species" acceptable.  
-------------------------------------------------------

To recap:
-I have stated that my problem with the house-elfs is
not that they're house-elfs; it's how they are TREATED
as house-elfs.
-Dobby's speech is similar to a slave dialect, as his
is the voice of the marginalized.  I think it's no
accident that JKR gave Dobby and the house-elfs this
so-called "subordinate" variety of language. 
-If Hermione's S.P.E.W. is over the top for you,
consider Dumbledore's willingness to improve house-elf
welfare(given Dumbledore's role in HP as mentor and
moral compass) as a sign of the unfairness of
house-elfment. 
-"Another species with different needs" may be
misconstrued as reason not to empathize and therefore
give license to exploit.  The "not like us" logic
supported slavery for centuries. Not being human does
not eliminate the possibility that house-elfs are
mistreated; it may increase it.

Part 2 to soon follow...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com