House Elf Loyalty

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 151655

Carol:
Since the house-elves appear to be derived from the elves and 
brownies
of English folklore (as opposed to Faerie, like Tolkien's very
different Elves), I doubt that they ever signed or were tricked into
an agreement. It seems to be their nature to work for humans although
it's nonmagical ordinary humans (Muggles, though the term isn't used)
who receive their aid in folklore, cf. the story of the shoemaker and
the elves cited by another poster in this thread. (Witches and 
wizards
wouldn't need their aid as they have their own magic.)

a_svirn:
I don't think so. For one, just because Rowling borrowed house-elves 
from folklore it doesn't follow that in her own universe they 
function in a similar way. She borrows many things from many 
sources, but in Potterverse these things acquire life of their own.

Moreover, folklore unlike literature has no such thing as canon. Put 
simply it varies. And not just regionally and historically, although 
that too. Folklore exists mostly in the form of narratives, and each 
narrator adds a different touch to a story. You say that it is in 
their nature to serve ordinary non-magical humans. Fine, but I seem 
to recall lots of stories where they serve witches. Also, they do 
not necessarily serve because it is "in their nature". There is 
quite a few stories depicting their service as a reciprocal 
exchange – they render certain services in return for food, 
miniscule footwear (not quite socks, but close) and/or certain 
favors. Because the situation of exchange is fraught with a 
possibility of cheating it is not infrequent feature of those 
stories when they are tricked or entrapped into permanent and 
rewardless service (or as Dobby would put it *enslaved*). 
Alternatively, sometimes they turn tables on their mistresses – 
witches were widely believed to become in the end instruments of 
their own familiars and/or magical servants. In other words, if we 
are going to look for explanation in folklore we'll be able to find 
an appropriate story for just about any hypothesis that has been or 
still is being discussed on-list. 

Carol:
What is freedom, then? To quote a song from (I think) the 60s,
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin' ain't
worth nothin', but it's free."

a_svirn:
But I don't believe that Rowling would think such POV relevant. Not 
for nothing Imperius is among the Unforgivables.

Carol:
My guess is that if the MoM passed an edict freeing house-elves, the
vast majority of them, including the Hogwarts house-elves, would stay
where they were, serving their former masters by choice and refusing
wages. Kreacher would probably *choose* to serve Bellatrix or 
Narcissa
or Draco, in that order, and if all of them were dead or imprisoned,
he would go back to the portrait of his mistress to enjoy his misery.

a_svirn:
Perhaps. But the choice would be theirs. That's the difference. 

Carol:
Freeing the house-elves would allow the escape of a few abused
house-elves from a life of slavery and drudgery, but would it provide
new opportunities for the emancipated house-elves? Would even the
abused elves feel duty bound to serve their old masters? Would they
demand humane treatment and wages, or would doing so violate their
pride and house-elf tradition? Could the former abusive masters 
refuse
to pay them or top punishing them and kick them out? It seems to me
that they'd have all the freedom of an unemployed Rita Skeeter or
maybe less as they'd have no idea of how to go about finding a new 
job.

a_svirn:
This is certainly true. But the same could be (and has been with 
justice) said about humans. Neither emancipations of slaves in the 
States or in British colonies, nor, say emancipation of serfs, say, 
in Russia have been accomplished without facing and solving (with 
various degrees of success) the very problems you outline. And I'd 
like to point out, that neither of those problems arose because they 
were "slaves by nature". Although there has been no shortage of 
scholarly individuals since Aristotle onwards who propagated this 
very idea. 

Magpie:
Which I think means we really can't take it as a metaphor for slavery
because what group of human slaves (as opposed to individuals who 
may not
mind it as much as others) want to be slaves in the face of other 
people
trying to free them?

a_svirn:
Lots of Russian serfs were not keen to become emancipated. And it is 
not entirely unheard of for slaves to cling to their masters' 
households rather than embrace freedom.