[HPforGrownups] House Elves and Slavery (Nel Question ## 1 & 2)

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 126515

I'm going to improve on my record and actually post some thoughts
about the house elves.  For some reason, I end up on a Sirius tangent.

> bboyminn:
> Ah the elves, one of my favorite topics. Though I was disappointed to
> not see my post in your list. From my list of my posts, see message
> #126263. For my complete Q&A on elves see...
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71752

Sorry -- I did miss some, especially the older ones, as I did the
search in reverse chronological order.  There have been many
thoughtful posts on the elves, and I know I did not include them all.

> 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?

It's interesting how this question focuses only on whether the house
elves have been brainwashed.  I think it's overreaching to describe
the house elves as brainwashed, as the current connotations of the
term suggest an intentional process of re-education, whereas the
enslavement of the houe elves goes back centuries.  What's really
going on, in my view, is the usual process of culturization, and if it
applies to the house elves, it applies to everyone else, too.

If it is appropriate to state that the house elves have been
brainwashed by wizarding culture to accept their subservient role,
then it would be equally appropriate to assert that Hermione has been
brainwashed by her bleeding-heart liberal muggle culture to assume
that all beings must be free.  And equally appropriate to assert that
the Weasleys, who accept the house elves' enslavement (George comments
in CoS that Molly wished she had a house elf), as brainwashed by the
same WW culture.  Everyone who buys into the norms of his/her culture
without a thorough and detached appraisal is *brainwashed* in a sense.

> B.    Does the depiction of the treacherous Kreacher add an
> additional dimension to our understanding of house elves and their
> narrative function?  Kreacher's description (as well as that of his
> sleeping quarters), which emphasizes his filthiness rather than the
> doll-like description of Dobby?  What about his apparent endorsement
> of the racist views of the Black family?

Another *brainwashed* character.  And Kreacher doesn't just accept the
subservient role of house elves; he also seems to accept his family's
pureblood mania, while Sirius does not.  Though JKR's emphasis on
choice indicates that Kreacher (and anyone else) must be held
accountable for his or her actions notwithstanding that "Kreacher is
what he has been made by wizards."
 
Alla asked:

> Davewitley wrote in message 39137:
> 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."
> 
> Alla:
> I would like to know what Dave meant  when he said  that " a magical
> condition, as described by Dobby is being used as a metaphor fora
> psychological one, as observed by Trio in GoF." I often feel that
> symbols in HP series are not that simple as they may seem and since
> my thinking of House Elves is quite simple, I would love to
> understand the details of more sophisticated interpretations. 

The elves' servitude is a magical condition, subject to magical rules
that have a force of their own.  Dobby was freed by operation of those
magical rules contrary to Lucius Malfoy's intent, in the same manner
that Harry was forced by operation of a magical contract, without any
intent of his own, to participate in the Triwizard Tournament.  On the
other hand, we as readers often see a thematic or metaphoric element
to the magic.  For example, the Department of Mysteries episode in OOP
is a metaphor for all of the mysteries of life, but the physical
manifestations of the mysteries have specific magical properties --
such as the bell jar that causes the DE to reverse its age.

I have my own magical explanation for Dobby's independence; I have
argued that he was at one time the Potters' house elf, and was only
relocated to the Malfoys after the events at Godric's Hollow. 
However, I also think JKR is using Dobby, as well as Sirius, to make
her point about the importance of personal choice, as they are two
obvious exemplars of characters that reject the norms of the
subculture in which they were raised.

We are given no backstory to explain either one, though it would seem
to be a natural area to explore, given the importance JKR seems to
place on personal choice.  When did Sirius learn that there was
something wrong about his family's pureblood fanaticism?  And if he
was able to exercise his conscience to reject his family, why did it
not extend to his treatment of house elves?

The statement that Sirius regarded Kreacher "as a servant unworthy of
attention or notice" suggests that in this respect he had absorbed the
family's own upper-class views.  However, Dumbledore then makes the
apparently inconsistent statement that Sirius "was kind to house elves
in general" but that he "had no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher
was a living reminder of the home Sirius had hated."   Somehow
treating a class of beings as unworthy of attention or notice doesn't
seem very "kind" to me.  However, it does seem consistent with Sirius'
general contempt of those he believed to be inferior to himself, such
as Pettigrew and, for that matter, his own family.  In his own words,
"If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he
treats his inferiors, not his equals."

Debbie
with apologies for focusing so much on Sirius, but I have a great deal
of trouble with his character -- how I see Sirius act in the books
just doesn't square with what JKR tries to tell us about him