JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance"

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178928

> > a_svirn:
> > The point under that particular discussion was self-abuse, 
though, 
> not house-elves emancipation as such. Did Hermione stop or try to 
stop
> or plan to try to stop house elves and more particularly Kreacher 
from
> inflicting self-punishment on themselves? She didn't. she was
> distressed by the sight but she did nothing to prevent its 
> repetition. And before you ask again, yes, I think she couldn't. I 
> believe I stated it time and again: she couldn't do it because they 
> are different and she cannot change it. And by DH she had accepted 
it.
> > 
> Carol:
> Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any
> House-Elves, 

a_svirn:
Is there a difference in the distinction? 

> Carol:
of course she couldn't, either on the individual level or
> on a larger scale. She can neither free the House-Elves (thank
> goodness) nor order them to stop harming themselves because she has 
no
> authority over them. (Kreacher does, finally, give her a nod of
> respect, or so it seems to Harry, because she understood him and
> explained his thought process to Harry.) Nor was Harry Dobby's 
master,
> so he couldn't order Dobby not to abuse himself, even after Dobby 
was
> free. (Whether Dobby was acting under compulsion or from deeply
> ingrained social conditioning and habit is unclear. I think the
> latter.) With regard to Kreacher's self-abuse, the only question 
that
> makes sense to me is whether Harry, as Kreacher's master, could 
order
> him to stop. 

a_svirn:
I agree. I guess I need to take a blood oath for you to finally 
believe me. 

> Carol:
He fails to do so when Kreacher regards *Regulus* as his
> master (whom he has failed, despite repeated attempts), but once
> Kreacher acknowledges Harry as his master, IIRC, the self-abuse 
stops.
> If Harry gives him no incentive to disobey an order and no reason to
> speak ill of him (the only two reasons why the House-Elves we see
> abuse themselves), the problem will stop. We don't see the House-
Elves
> at Hogwarts abusing themselves. <snip>

a_svirn:
We don't see them at all for the most part. They are unobtrusive 
little things. 

> Carol:
> I take it as a sign that Kreacher is capable of independent action 
and
> leadership (maybe, in part, because he's Harry Potter's House-Elf). 
> And he didn't deliberately bring about Sirius Black's ruin; he was
> helping to lure Harry to the MoM. 

a_svirn:
Very well, I stand corrected. He tried to bring both Harry's and 
Sirius's ruin about as well as the ruin of as much members of the 
Order as possible. He did it deliberately on his free will and in 
open defiance to his master's will. And was glad to learn about his 
master's death. 

> Carol:
<snip>That aside, surely leading the
> House-Elves in open rebellion against the Dark Lord is better than
> secretly plotting with the Dark Lord's supporters to lure his young
> nemesis into danger. 

a_svirn:
Sure. But I was under the impression that it was the Dark Lord who 
was "in open rebellion" against the wizarding world of old. Then 
again, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and 
all that. But we seem to wander from the point. The point being that 
elves do *not* fight for their freedom. They fight alongside their 
masters and against their masters' enemies. They are, however, 
equally capable to fight against their masters if their masters 
aren't careful. Ergo, masters must be careful and responsible and all 
will be well. Free will is neither here, nor there in this grand 
scheme of things.

> Carol:
Of course, he was always capable of independent
> acts. But the nature and quality of those acts changed. Now he's
> fighting in the name of the hero he regards as the champion of
> House-Elves, not Harry but Regulus. 

a_svirn:
Well, I always knew he was sadly confused. He did say "Harry Potter, 
defender of house elves".

> Carol:
IOW, he understands that
> House-Elves have the right to fair treatment, the right not to be
> tortured and abused. 

a_svirn:
Then why he persists in self-abusing? Or do you think he reserves 
right to punish solely to himself? Surely that would put Harry into 
an impossible position. How one can hope to become a responsible 
master, if one cannot even punish one's own slave, let alone stop him 
from punishing himself? 

> Carol:
You may not see progress there. I see a complete turnaround. And
> Kreacher has a lot more influence over the other House-Elves than
> Hermione did in GoF, imposing her human ideas on them without
> respecting their feelings and desires. He knows exactly what they
> want. It's what he wants himself.

a_svirn:
And that would be? That's right -- a good master. Why do you call it 
a "complete turnaround" is beyond my understanding. 


> Carol:
> 
> Just to be clear, I meant that they don't want a change from the 
fair
> treatment they received under Dumbledore and, it would appear, 
Snape.
> That's the status quo they want to preserve, the House-Elf's idea of
> la dolce vita. They don't want a change to new, cruel masters. 

a_svirn:
Sensible of them. 

> Carol:
I never
> said they were rebelling. 

a_svirn:
Sorry. I misunderstood your usage then. 

> Carol:
If they were, they'd be fighting against
> McGonagall et al. and joining Voldemort, the would-be usurper who's
> trying to invade Hogwarts (which he was under the delusion that he 
was
> already running via Snape). They're fighting for their right to fair
> treatment and a job they love. 

a_svirn:
No, they aren't. They don't have the "right" to have a good job and 
likable masters. They are just lucky to have them anyway. They don't 
want to change that, naturally. But they do not have any rights and 
never will. They are slaves.