Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162081

> > >>Carol:
> > I agree, and I think a-svirn has conceded the fear of freedom in
> > another post. It seems to be the word "responsibility" that's      
> > causin problems here.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> IMO, I think it's more what encompasses Harry's responsibility. 
>From what I'm understanding, both you and Ceridwen seem to feel that 
> Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry giving him 
> chores.  It doesn't matter if the particular assignment forces 
> Kreacher to betray a family he loves (spying on Draco), as long as 
> Kreacher is busy.
> 
> Frankly, I don't understand that view point.  I'm not sure what
canon you all are drawing on.  I don't recall Kreacher ever
complaining about a lack of work.
> 
Carol responds:
I don't understand that point of view, either, since it's not at all
what I'm arguing. (I can't spek for Ceridwen.) I'm saying that Harry
has the responsibility to treat Kreacher humanely or see that he is
humanely treated. As an aside, I suggested that he should be given
something to do, in part because house-elves in general like work and
in part to keep him out of mischief, but that's not what I meant by
responsibility. In essence, since Harry can't get out of owning
Kreacher--he's too dangerous to set free--Harry's only option is to be
a benevolent and *responsible* slave owner. He can't give Kreacher
clothes, but he can and should make sure that he's clean and well-fed
and otherwise treated humanely. 

As a practical measure, *not* part of Harry's responsibility to
Kreacher but simple common sense to prevent trouble, Kreacher should
be given some task that he's capable of doing. He is, after all, a
house-elf and maybe part of what's wrong with him in OoP is that he
*doesn't* have any tasks to do. He's certainly happy to work for
Narcissa when given the opportunity. In any case, if he has nothing to
do, he'll be bored and likely to cause trouble.

You're right that the particular assignment that Harry has given
Kreacher is odious to him and violates his loyalties. Harry doesn't
understand that because he opposes everything that the Black family
stands for. It's a Catch-22 because there really isn't much that
Kreacher can do for Harry without causing resentment, but he can't be
left to his own resources without supervision because his loyalties
lie with dangerous people who support Voldemort (at least until Book
7, when matters could change drastically). I suppose he could be
assigned to shine the Slytherin students' boots or do their laundry,
in which case he would be serving witches and wizards whose values
reflect his own even if they're not Voldemort supporters. 

But I'm not arguing that giving Kreacher work is part of Harry's
responsibility. I'm only saying that, as the owner of a slave he can't
set free, he has the responsibility to treat that slave humanely, with
respect and consideration and yet with reasonable restrictions, as he
would a child or an employee or any sort of subordinate. Even a pet is
generally treated more responsibly than Harry treats Kreacher. IMO, he
wants to be rid of him. He's rather not think about him. so Dobby, who
knows that it's not safe to ignore or neglect Kreacher, steps in.
Unfortunately, neither house-elf treats the other with respect or
courtesy, and Kreacher ends up losing several teeth. Dobby, who has no
authority over him, can only control him with force. Harry, however,
could do so with a word: "Kreacher, go take a bath and put on a clean
tea towel. Make yourself a clean loincloth if you like, but get rid of
that one. Clean your nails and trim your ear hairs while you're at
it." "Kreacher, how do you feel about cleaning the Slytherin students'
boots?" "Kreacher would be honored to serve the children of the Death
Eaters." "Then go clean Draco Malfoy's boots and do Crabbe's, Goyle's,
and Nott's while you're at it. You might do Zabini's, too. He's not a
Death Eater kid, but he's a pureblood and hates blood traitors."
"Kreacher would be happy to serve such noble children." "Go do it,
then. but clean yourself up first and have something to eat. Come back
to me when you need something else to do. Oh, and get a good night's
sleep."

Just because Kreacher hasn't complained about a lack of work doesn't
mean that he wouldn't be happy to do it--for the "right" people. Harry
needs to heed Dumbledore's words about treating Kreacher "with
kindness and respect" (OoP Am. ed. 832). *That* is Harry's
responsibility, and that it what he has so far failed to do.

Betsy HP:
> The way I see it, Kreacher starts off as a prisoner of war.  He is 
> bound by the house-elf enchantments to the enemy.  Harry has made 
> sure that he cannot escape, and he's humanely given him food and 
> shelter (which I agree is a good thing).
> 
> But then Harry (or JKR?) makes the odd decision of having Harry 
> behave not as someone responsible for a prisoner of war.  Harry 
> becomes a slave owner in every sense.  He assigns Kreacher a task 
> Kreacher does not want but has no choice but to do.  That's not
Harry acting responsibly.  It's Harry acting as a normal wizard of the
WW who owns a house-elf.

Carol:
I'm not arguing that Harry is acting responsibly. I'm saying that he
has a responsibility which he's neglecting. Like it or not, he *is* a
slave owner, and he's responsible for every aspect of his slave's
welfare, including giving him duties to perform that are not odious to
him and that suit his tastes and abilities. That's especially
important in the case of a dangerous slave like Kreacher, who is also,
if you like, a Prisoner of War. IMO, he's still a slave, or indentured
servant, who happens to dislike his owner even when that owner doesn't
abuse him.

Harry makes sure that *someone else* meets Kreacher's needs for food
and shelter and then ignores and neglects him. When he does give him a
task, it's one that conflicts with Kreacher's loyalties. Harry either
doesn't realize or doesn't care that he's causing Kreacher distress.
Like Sirius before him, he doesn't see Kreacher as a sentient being
with thoughts and feelings. He sees him as a traitorous bit of filth
who nevertheless has his uses.

Since Harry can't free him, and since compelling him to violate his
loyalties is a form of tyranny, Harry needs to think his situation and
to behave responsibly toward the being who, contrary to the wishes of
both, happens to belong to him. He'd do his best to treat Buckbeak
well. He ought to do as much and more for Kreacher. If he must be a
slave owner, he should be a benevolent and responsible slave owner.
That's all I'm saying.

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave 
> owner.  Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough?  And a
tiny bit more noble?

Carol:
How so? Harry owns Kreacher, thanks to Sirius Black's will. He's not a
mere guard. That role has been relegated to Dobby. Until such time as
he can safely free Kreacher, Harry is as much responsible for his
well-being as a parent for a child's. Nobility is not in the job title
but in the actions. there's even a term for what I'm talking about:
noblesse oblige, the obligation of the well-born (in this case, the
wealthy wizard) to be honorable, generous, and responsible toward
those of lesser rank, particularly his dependents. Rather than
treating him as a prisoner of war, he should treat him as a person, or
personlike being, for whom he is responsible. I think they'd both be
much better off if he treated Kreacher as his employee rather than as
a prisoner of war--always bearing in mind that Kreacher must be
watched as well as treated as house-elves wish to be treated.

Why are the Hogwarts house-elves happy? Because they have work that
suits them. They feel useful and they have a sense of belonging.
They're clean and well-fed. If Kreacher could live under similar
conditions (with a little therapy thrown in <g>), perhaps he'd be
happy, too. Who knows? Maybe there's even hope for his redemption.

Carol, who simply wants Harry to recognize Dumbledore's wisdom before
it's too late