[HPforGrownups] House Elves and Slavery

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 126689

Ffred wrote:
> Elves aren't human and they don't have human nature.
> 
> Their nature is to do housework.
> 
> Some (and I'm sure not all) wizards take advantage of that by mistreating
> elves in their households. That doesn't make them "masters" any more than it
> makes elves "slaves".

Except that in the books, these words are consistently used to
describe the relationship.  For example, in CoS ch. 10 Dobby refers
both to his "master" and his "enslavement."  In OOP ch. 37 Dumbledore
uses the word "master" more than once to describe the relationship
between Sirius and Kreacher, and describes Kreacher's condition as
enslavement.  And Winky refers to both Crouch Sr. and Jr. as "master."

I agree that it is the house elves' nature to want to provide good
service, and that therefore they can't directly be compared to humans.
 However, there are ways of allowing the house elves to do housework
without exploiting them.  I think the fact that house elves lack the
freedom, as things stand now, to disobey a direct order means that the
nature of the relationship between the elves and those they work for
must be changed.
 
> If I was to end the "slavery" of my old dog, she'd die a miserable death on
> the streets. I think it's equally cruel to try to force elves to be what?
> Proletarians? when they just don't want to be.

But your dog is not bound to serve you and punish herself if she
doesn't do what you want.

Ffred:
> But shifting across to the WW, things are very different. Our own species
> has three subspecies (not just Muggles like ourselves, but also squibs and
> wizarding folk). But also the world is inhabited by many other sapient
> species (who can be expected to have very different natures than ourselves).

[snip discussion of different ww species of beings, which I agree with]

> Is the message perhaps that the more humans meddle with house elves, the
> worse it is for them? Shouldn't we just let them get on with what it's in
> their nature to do, and not try to alter them? Would the result of
> Hermione's crusade be a species made up of Kreachers and Winkys? Hermione
> can be understood for her perspective, but WW-borns _know_ that not all
> sapients have minds that run on the same tracks as our own.

It is their nature to provide good service (even independent-minded
Dobby does not want a new profession), but we don't know whether their
enslavement is part of their nature or whether the terms of their
enslavement are part of a centuries-old devil's bargain between house
elves and wizards.  If the former, Hermione is way off the mark as the
real issue is house elf abuse.  If the latter, the fact that they are
enslaved is the problem, because they cannot leave an abusive master.

The relationships among all beings are a constant issue in the WW, as
illustrated by the snippets of history in Fantastic Beasts.  Wizards
are not the only species to believe they are superior to other beings.
 Witness the centaurs' insistence on classification as beasts because
they would not share being classification with hags and vampires.  And
though there are clearly differences in the natures of different
species (Grawp, anyone?), we don't know how extensive they are.  Are
goblins by nature wily creatures who counseled trolls to disrupt the
councils of beings, or is it a reaction to their isolation from
wizarding society?

The differences between nonhuman beings and humans does make it very
difficult to claim that any species of beings is being used in the
books as a specific metaphor for something -- be it slavery,
housewives, or the servant class (in the case of the elves), the
mentally ill or HIV-positive (in the case of werewolves), or Jews
(which has been suggested as a metaphor for the goblins), though I
believe it is appropriate to assume that JKR is raising issues of
exploitation and prejudice in her depiction of the treatment of
nonhuman beings in the books.

Debbie