Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 39137

Gwendolyn Grace wrote:

>So without further ado, Dr. Nel's actual questions:
> 
> 1. Jonathan Levi said that GoF was "the first children's book to 
> endorse slavery since Little Black Sambo."  Do the Potter novels 
> endorse the house-elves' enslavement?  Consider the positions on 
elf 
> rights taken by Ron, George, Mr. Weasley, Dobby, Winky, Hermione, 
> Sirius Black and Harry.   With whom are our sympathies supposed to 
> lie?

This is harder than at first appears, as all these characters are to 
some extent sympathetic.  Furthermore, those with whom it's easiest 
to sympathise on the House-elf issue (Sirius and Arthur Weasley) are 
easiest precisely because we know so little of what they actually 
believe, beyond the vaguest of generalities.

It is difficult to sympathise with George, not because his position 
is inherently unsympathetic, but because the arguments he uses have 
such a history for us.  However innocent he may be, he comes off as 
the mouthpiece of all those arguments from nature down the centuries.

We are supposed to sympathise with Winky, but not to agree with her.  
Her inability to see the Crouches for what they are is a crucial clue 
to her lack of judgement.

Again, I believe we are supposed to sympathise with Hermione (the 
most difficult case), while cringeing at her methods.  The signals 
for sympathy are that in similar issues (werewolves, giants) the 
narrative outcomes vindicate her.  The cringe comes from the 
realisation that she alienates Dobby, whom one would suppose her 
natural ally.

One other character worth mentioning is Dumbledore. His position, 
given his general standing in the series, would be expected to be 
authoritative.  The fact that he offers Winky salary and holiday, 
although she sees that as shameful, is to me one of the clearest 
indications that JKR's intention (it is OK to think one knows what 
that is, yes?) is to present the HE as standing for an aspect of 
humanity, not as a distinct species with radically different needs.  
In other words, we are going to have it confirmed that House Elf 
Slavery Is Wrong. (BTW, I think this applies to other beings such as 
centaurs and giants: they will turn out to be human in essence.  With 
giants we have virtually been told that.  It could be argued that the 
alien and unreconcilable Dementors are the most human of all, though 
I cheat to arrive at that conclusion by paying attention to JKR's 
extra-canonical utterances.  So hit me with a paddle.)
> 
> 2. If the HP novels endorse subjugation of the house elves, do they 
> endorse enslavement?  Or should we instead see Rowling as 
recognizing 
> the limitations of social reform?  Are we supposed to be outraged 
or 
> sympathetic to George Weasley's statement that the house elves are 
> happy (GoF, pg 211)?  A related point: Hermione says that the house 
> elves have been brainwashed into accepting their jobs.  Should we 
> agree with her?  Do we see the means through which the elves are 
> brainwashed? 

I will only address the question of brainwashing.  I have mentioned 
before that there is a sharp distinction between the Dobby of COS and 
the elves, including Winky, of GOF.  The latter *do* seem 
brainwashed.  Dobby most definitely does not.  If freedom is 
essentially an inner state of mind then Dobby is most definitely free 
right from the beginning of COS.  He is carrying out acts in direct 
opposition to his master's plan.  He knows what his masters are.  He 
is able to choose what side he is on.  He is able to express his 
gratitude to Harry for something that he has not, in fact, benefited 
from.  He is able to use his powerful magic in furtherance of his 
ends.  How is he not free?

Furthermore, he describes the condition of house-elves in a way that 
leads the reader to believe that all are like him.  In particular, he 
mentions that the owners of elves *in general* are very careful not 
to give clothes to their elves.  The implication of this is that the 
magical element is sufficiently important that both sides must obey 
it.  The natural reading of his words is that if, say Mr Crouch had 
inadvertently given Winky a sock to hold, the would *both* have had 
to accept that she was now free, *whether they liked it or not*.

I think probably the explanation is that (as somebody pointed out in 
connection with Neville's memory) a magical condition, as described 
by Dobby, is being used as a metaphor for a psychological one, as 
observed by the trio in GOF.  With JKR we seem to get both the symbol 
and the thing symbolised together, sometimes to our slight confusion 
as we are left with two valid explanations occupying the same 
intellectual space.
> 
> The central debate seems to center around one question 
> of interpretation: Are the house-elves meant to be taken as literal 
> beings, or are they meant to represent a metaphor for something? 

Another way of looking at the debate is to ask not what it is 
possible that House-Elves *might* be, but what it is probable that 
they are intended to be.  So, not what could JKR mean, but where is 
JKR going.

David