Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (include...

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 39176

My take on the House-Elf issue.  It's not directly responsive to Gwen's 
latest, because I wrote most of it before reading hers, but it reflects a 
different POV.  Please insert a large IMO at the beginning of each sentence 
that does not contain a chapter reference. 

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? 

It's very interesting that the House-Elf debate has centered around 
identifying a specific metaphor for them, because I don't think a specific 
metaphor was ever intended.  The House-Elves are repeatedly described as 
"enslaved"  in the text of CoS and GoF.  Dobby uses the word enslavement to 
describe his own condition, e.g. in CoS ch. 10 where he says his pillowcase 
is "a mark of the house-elf's enslavement."  The very fact that JKR chose to 
use that word to describe the House-Elves' status tells me that they are very 
much intended as a metaphor for the enslaved or oppressed.  Enslavement is 
such a loaded term - at least here in the US - that it's hard for many of us 
to accept a non-metaphoric reading.

But what enslaved group they might represent has, IMO, been left up to the 
reader.  The details JKR includes in her description of the House-Elves 
allows us to identify them, according to our own experiences, with the 
oppressed group of our choice.  They in some ways suggest legally enslaved 
African Americans, based on their use of what appears to be a corrupted form 
of English and the fact that House-Elves are legally bound to their masters.  
Or we can see them, as Amy Z does, as a metaphor for.housewives (this is my 
personal favorite), based on a number of factors, including the similarity of 
the names, the fact that the primary duties of House-Elves seem to consist of 
housework and cooking - leaving heavy janitorial work at Hogwarts to Filch, 
who is a paid employee, and their other important role as secret-keepers for 
their masters (at one time wives were considered incompetent to testify 
against their husbands in trials).  Still others see them as a metaphor for 
the class system (like a good servant, the mark of a good house-elf is that 
he is not seen, and Winky worries that Dobby has ideas above his station (GoF 
ch.8)).  I think all of them are valid.

None of these, IMO, is a perfect metaphor, once you dig beneath the surface, 
as much of the debate here has demonstrated.  Part of the problem is that 
House-Elves, unlike other enslaved groups, have obvious powers that set them 
apart from, and perhaps ahead of, general wizarding society.  But I don't 
think the metaphor needs to be perfect in order to be effective - in fact it 
is more powerful, and less generationally limiting, to present enslavement as 
a generic concept instead of one tied to a particular group.  By giving the 
house-elves features that reflect some characteristics of a number of 
enslaved or oppressed groups (for example, differentiated speech patterns), 
JKR allows us to read in oppressed groups that she perhaps did not have in 
mind and that are not mentioned here (or to read out others).

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 don't think the books endorse slavery.   But, as others have pointed out, 
it's very difficult to free slaves who don't want to be freed and may be 
unable to cope with it.  Moreover, we have no information on the cause or the 
means of the house-elves' enslavement; without that, it's impossible to 
determine how to help them.  Hermione states that she researched the topic 
thoroughly (GoF ch. 14) but doesn't tell us anything except that elf 
enslavement "goes back centuries."  It's not clear that she understands their 
enslavement, either.  

I'm not at all convinced by the suggestion that house-elves must use their 
magic in service of others or lose it.  To me, the simple fact that the text 
describes their condition as enslavement leads me to believe this is not the 
case.  Perhaps the house-elves were enslaved because their magical powers 
were perceived as threatening by the WW.  Even if that's the case, a simple 
grant of civil rights to them is not an effective solution because the 
psychological dependency that seems to result from enslavement has robbed 
House-Elves of the inclination to think for themselves.  

However, I think it's more likely that house-elves do have some kind of 
vulnerability that in combination with their magical powers makes them 
attractive targets for enslavement.  Their apparent need to work and serve 
(evidenced by Dobby's refusal of much of the offered salary and days off) and 
be useful is an obvious characteristic that can be exploited.  In addition, 
they are presented as childlike, or even doll-like - both in their physical 
descriptions, which emphasize their small stature, big tennis ball eyes, and 
in their childlike gratitude for small favors. Hermione suggests that 
house-elves are in special need of protection by stating (in GoF, ch. 24) 
that goblins, unlike house-elves, don't need protection because they're 
clever; that could  be read as a patronizing comment about the house-elves' 
simplicity (though I'm not convinced she knows what she's talking about). 

 I think it's very possible that the house-elves' current condition of 
servitude is the result of a magical contract entered into between the 
house-elves and wealthy wizards with castles and manor-houses; house-elves 
pledged themselves use their magic solely to serve their master or  house in 
exchange for lifetime care and protection.  If  a house-elf failed to serve 
his master properly, under the magical contract the elf would be forced to 
punish himself.  This explains why Dobby feels compelled to punish himself, 
even when his master is absent.  To seal the bargain, they relinquished their 
clothes, to be returned upon termination of the contract.  I envision this 
having developed perhaps in the same way the feudal system developed:  the 
lord provided protection for the populace in exchange for service.  Perhaps 
the deal appeared benevolent to the house-elves at the time.  But, of course, 
the contract turned out to be a devil's bargain.  Why?  Power is inherently 
corruptive.  The role of protector carries with it an enormous responsibility 
to uphold the trust that comes with surrendering to the protector; it also 
offers the protector the temptation of exploitation. Thus, over the 
centuries, the effect of the power is the institutionalization of repression 
and abuse in the name of tradition, long after the the reason for the 
contract's existence - the master's commitment to protect the servant - has 
been forgotten.  This is reflected, for example, in the reduction of people 
protected under the feudal system over the centuries to serfs who become tied 
to the land.

If this is the case, then pay and vacations are worthless.  The magical 
contract itself, or whatever binds the elves in slavery, has outlived its 
usefulness and must be broken.  However, we know that freedom is useless 
unless (the hard part) they have the ability and the means to exercise it.  
Dobby's experience shows that at this point there is little for a free 
house-elf to do unless the elf is trained for another profession; people 
don't want to pay for housework.  (And we don't know if they're suited for or 
able to undertake anything else than what they do now.)

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?

IMO, House-elf enslavement  has become so entrenched in the WW that even 
families like the Weasleys, that display sensitivity toward Muggles, seem to 
accept the house-elf system status quo without question, and with very little 
attention (except for Arthur) to even simple questions such as whether the 
house-elves are being abused.  Ron, for example, has confused Winky's desire 
to work hard and exhibit loyalty to her master with liking enslavement.  It's 
not even clear when Arthur tells Hermione he agrees with her what his actual 
position is on elf rights, because the context was Winky's mistreatment.  
Does he support freedom for house-elves, or does he merely mean that they 
should be treated with dignity and respect and not abused?  I don't know.  
And if the latter, does that reflect acceptance of their slavery or merely an 
acknowledgement that freedom at this time would be a disservice to the elves? 
Having lived lives of dependence, they can't simply go job-hunting.  As 
happened with the end of slavery in the U.S., too many slaves will end up in 
their old positions, with formal slavery having been exchanged merely for the 
quasi-slavery of the sharecropper.

And what about Dumbledore?  He deserves credit for his willingness to hire 
and pay Dobby and Winky. There is plenty of evidence to show that the 
Hogwarts house-elves are well-treated.  Their tea-towels (unlike Dobby's old 
pillowcase) are crisp and clean.  (GoF ch. 21)  None of the elves in the 
Hogwarts kitchens are banging their heads on the oven doors.  In fact, they 
are "beaming, bowing and curtsying."   With the exception of Winky, they seem 
quite satisfied with their lot.  Thus, George Weasley's statement that 
they're happy may be accurate.  So why would they even want freedom, when 
they have everything they need or want at Hogwarts, while look at what 
Hermione is offering.  She tells them, "You've got just as much right as 
wizards to be unhappy!  You've got the right to wages and holidays and proper 
clothes . . . ."  (GoF ch. 28, p. 538 US)   But even Dumbledore doesn't give 
them their freedom, which is telling.  Though I think Dumbledore is biding 
his time and wants to free them when the time is right.  Why else would his 
greatest desire be for socks, the symbol of Dobby's freedom and by extension, 
freedom for all House-Elves?

One last point.  Gwen asked:

> Incidentally, did anyone notice that Winky actually does refer to 
> herself in the first person a few times, whereas Dobby never does? Do 
> you think this indicates a difference between the two of them, either 
> in education or treatment or some other status difference, or is it a 
> Flint?
> 
In CoS, ch. 2, Dobby states, "Sometimes they reminds *me* to do extra 
punishments."  But I think it's a Flint.  Winky's slip-ups may not be Flints. 
 She may be so distraught that she forgets.


       <@ 
       /___

(The copyright to this L.O.O.N.* belongs to Dicentra, who graciously loaned 
it to me.)

Debbie, who will be sending Dumbledore socks this Christmas

*League Of Obsessive Nitpickers


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]