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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162084


a_svirn wrote:
> We have seen three elves at close quarters. Two of them rebelled 
> against their masters. All things considered not a bad percentage. 
> Better, in fact, than with human slaves. 

Carol responds:
We see Dobby, Kreacher, and Winky at close range *because* they're
exceptional, all of them in some way involved with Harrry. Only in
Dobby's case is that involvement vouluntary. (Interesting, isn't it,
that Dobby worships Harry as the hero of the house-elves, but Winky,
who worked for Mr. Crouch, also an enemy of the Death Eaters and
Voldemort, worships him instead, while also caring deeply about his
Death Eater son? the politics of the WW are of no concern to her, but
she wants Barty Jr. to be able to watch Quidditch and see the sun.)
The house-elves at Hogwarts, in contrast, appear to be typical--more
than satisfied with their situation and disapproving of those who, in
their view, disgrace them. And even Dobby is happy with Dumbledore as
a "master" (employer), though he also volunteers to serve Harry.

Judging house-elves in general by these three atypical specimens is
like judging Hogwarts students by HRH. Those three go around breaking
rules and wandering the halls at midnight and figuring out ways to
fight Voldemrot. But three out of 280 (or more) is not a
representative sample.

> a_svirn wrote:
> <snip> I am honestly baffled by all this talk about 
> elves' "nature".  The argument is than since they *want* or even 
> *need* to serve, slavery is a natural state for them. Living aside 
> the fact that not all of them *need* to serve, I don't see how 
> slavery is the answer to this basic need. <snip>

Carol:
No one is saying that slavery is the answer to the house-elves' need
to serve, only that--from what we have seen of house-elves, including
the atypical three that you cited--house-elves *want* to serve humans.
winky mourns for the master who fired her, Dobby does everything he
can to help Harry while also working for Hogwarts, even cleaning up
the hats that Hermione has knitted when the other elves refuse to do
so. He also states, paradoxically, "Dobby is a free house-elf and can
obey anyone he likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). And Kreacher also wants to
work, or at least is not averse to working for someone whose values
resembled his old mistress's, as evidenced by his remark in HBP:
"Kreacher would much rather be the servant of the Malfoy boy, oh yes"
(422).
> 
a_svirn:
> > Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear
> of freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer
> security. If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the
> elves social well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less.
<snip> 
> The snag is that Kreacher is not an animal; he is as much of a
person as Harry himself, and the only moral responsibility to another
person would be to set them free, or failing that, treat them with
respect until such time they *can* be set free. 

Carol responds:
Which is exactly what I've been arguing. House-elves in general can't
be set free until they have some options. Kreacher can't be set free
because he's dangerous. The interim solution is responsible ownership,
treating the house-elves humanely and with respect. Harry has so far
failed to do that with Kreacher, understandably, given Kreacher's
history, personality, and loyalties. But he needs to at least attempt
to understand Kreacher. Forbidding Dobby and Kreacher to fight is a
start. Ordering Kreacher to keep clean--though it's an order--would
also be to his benefit. Obedience can be, if not a virtue, at least to
the advantage of the person given the order. Not all rules, laws, and
orders are made to be broken. 

Carol, imagining a mob of "freed" house-elves with no place to go, no
employment, and nothing but the clothes they consider a disgrace to
call their own