House Elves and justice, etc

[deborahhbbrd]

No: HPFGUIDX 129730

I'd like to make a couple of points about the ethics, slavery etc
discussions: and I'm a frustrated would-be snipper because my computer
is playing silly games – presumably at the instigation of a House Elf
who doesn't want the world to know the truth 


But A Svirn said that slaves have no ethics: since they are deprived
of justice in their entire lives, they must therefore also be devoid
of (a sense of) justice. But we are not living in slave-owning
societies, so how would we know? Enter the ancient Greeks and Romans –
fanfare – and their dramatic expressions of current thinking.

Slave-owning societies, they were. (Bows to Yoda.) And their comedies
were remarkably similar to modern TV sitcoms in many ways, not least
their use of stock characters: the Grumpy Old Man, the Bigmouthed
Boaster, the Dishy Babe, the Manipulative but Lovable Slave 
 who is
the point, of course! This person is, typically, playing his owner's
game in the hopes of furthering his own agenda, which is liberty. The
slave, denied happiness and the choice of a wife, often helps the
Grumpy Old Man's Misunderstood Son to get together with the Dishy Babe
(who is sometimes a slave herself, but is always discovered to have
been free-born after all, so they can marry). He responds
imaginatively to a fellow human in distress, and tries to improve the
Young Master's unhappy lot. (He is not the kind of slave who gets
abused, decapitated etc – his owners are fair and good, as owners go;
but he pines for freedom and wants the Young Master to enjoy it.)

And when the happy ending comes about, through the slave's creative
ingenuity, he is asked what he would like as a reward. And is given
it. His freedom, of course.

Here we have a powerful story line, which a slave state found
convincing. Slaves can be creative; slaves can be loyal and
affectionate; slaves can play both ends against the middle for the
sake of truth and justice; and slaves can see the big picture when
their owners often stare themselves blind against rather nugatory
considerations. And there is no compulsion, certainly no thought
control, nothing but mutual respect and affection. It is bizarre, but
it is a brilliantly useful plot device.

Now, the interesting bit was I think also part of this lost thread 

once more, I do apologise! There was a remark that Dobby is not a
slave but a servant who (a) chooses to serve and (b) gets paid for his
work.

I haven't got my books here so I'm not even sure what is and isn't
canon. Do the House Elves get paid? Dobby at Hogwarts, yes. But Dobby
at Malfoy Manor? Winky and Kreacher, anywhere? Can we imagine Kreacher
with a vault at Gringott's? And yet 
 Molly Weasley would love a House
Elf but has never been able to afford one. Possibly, and it's a big
jump, the money goes, not to the Elves themselves but into a fund
administered by the MfM and withdrawable, perhaps, as retirement
benefits to such Elves as survive long enough 
 or, less gloomily,
perhaps there is a statutory retirement age beyond which they may not
work, but which would still enable them to live modestly, together,
and have lots of little House Elflets who would then perpetuate the
cycle. Molly could have an Elf if she had the money. Where would her
Elf come from? Perhaps one could advertise: "Large family,
respectable, pureblood, seeks House Elf for basic domestic duties
including Garden Gnome removal. Two weeks' leave a year and every
second weekend off." Or there might be employment agencies. However,
an Elf like Kreacher would certainly put the interests of his owners
above his own, and would ignore the government and all its works with
scorn. Happy in his abusive relationship with Ma Black, he would and
clearly does work for nothing into advanced old age; freedom would be
an insult to him. But this is a matter of plot utility and personal
pecularity, not necessarily of slave status.

Deborah, secure in her reasoning but insecure in her inability to
control her computer