House-Elves yet again

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 181322

> > Magpie:
> > I don't understand what this means. They're not human, but that
> > doesn't mean they can't be equals in many ways--they are persons
> > even if they aren't human persons, just like Goblins and 
Centaurs.
> > So what does it mean they're not equals in body, thought and
> > independence? They haven't different looking bodies than we do, 
but
> > that doesn't make them lower than us. They are able to think on 
the
> > human level. They're not independent equally, but that's the 
whole
> > point--they're slaves. This could describe human slaves as well.
> 
> 
> Shelley:
> But you are still thinking of them in human terms- what would make 
a HUMAN 
> happy, and can't comprehend that a magical creature with a 
different makeup 
> would NOT think like us, appreciate the same things, have the same 
value 
> system. We, as humans, have fiercely valued our independence. 
Those sentient 
> creatures that don't value independence are not "lower" than us, 
they just 
> share a different view on life. They make decisions based on 
different 
> criteria. Those who are still arguing for "slavery" are trying to 
put a 
> "human" in that same prediciment, and predict how "we" would feel, 
and 
> that's the wrong approach, since we are not House Elves, and House 
Elves are 
> not humans. , we tend to ignore the comment given in canon "they 
LIKE 
> their position" as somehow invalid, not really meaning what it 
says, because 
> if we were a human in that postion, we wouldn't like it, so we 
can't really 
> believe that it's true that a house elf likes it. We are 
substituting our 
> values for the House Elves.

Magpie:
No, I'm not thinking of them as humans, I'm thinking of them as 
House Elves as they are in canon, and the House Elves themselves 
have not only been known to describe themselves as enslaved but 
suffer because of it. Dobby was *not* happy in his position working 
for Lucius. Kreacher was *not* happy in his position working for 
Sirius or for Harry at first. It's not just me saying that if I were 
in such and such position I wouldn't like it and therefore they must 
not like it, I have canon of two elves who show House Elves are 
perfectly capable of not liking their position. Kreacher and Dobby 
both were made miserable by their position as slaves. 

I am not ignoring the comment in canon that they like their 
position, I'm being clear about what position it is that they 
actually like. They enjoy serving people they want to serve and they 
enjoy doing housework and other odd jobs. They mistakenly 
understand "freedom" to mean being sacked for bad work. But when 
faced with the true nature of their slavery and the real meaning of 
freedom--when they are forced to serve and praise masters they don't 
want to serve or praise--they don't like it at all. They like their 
position when they like their position; when they don't like their 
position they're stuck.

ShelleY;
 If you take House Elf values, it's clear that 
> they put themselves in a symbiotic relationship with Wizards. And 
I can't 
> tell a House Elf that he or she shouldn't like that symbiotic 
relationship, 
> just because if it were me in that position, I would call it 
slavery.

Magpie:
But I'm not telling them they shouldn't like whatever they like 
about Wizards. There is absolutely no canon that elves particularly 
like being forced to serve people they find repellent. On the 
contrary, we get the opposite, that they *don't* like doing that. 
They only like serving masters when they like that master.

And also, from the other side, this isn't just about house elves. 
Wizards *are* humans and so are human slave owners. If one has an 
ethical problem with *owning* slaves (rather than being one), 
Wizards have that problem. Wizards do things for their own benefit.

 
> > Shelley:
> > and secondly, we have it straight out of the mouths of the
> >> House Elves themselves that they are pleased to serve a master 
and
> > that it
> >> causes them great discomfort not to have a house to serve.
> >
> > Magpie:
> > This thread has gone into this idea in a very detailed way, so I
> > don't see how you can just jump back to it like it's so simple.
> 
> Shelley:
> Because it is so simple, once you get past thinking like a fiercy 
> independent human being who frankly hates to serve others, and 
desires to be 
> served, to thinking like a House Elf that admits pleasure in 
having a House 
> to serve.

Magpie:
It's simple imo because you're ignoring everything in canon that 
points out that it isn't. You seem happy to say, like Ron, that 
they're happy doing housework and therefore it's fine to enslave 
them even if that means an elf can be forced to work for people 
against his will. Iow, their feelings matter when they're happy with 
the situation to keep Wizards complacent, but when the House Elf is 
unhappy with the situation it doesn't count. 

But what makes them unhappy is the fact that they are slaves, which 
means by definition they don't have the same right to happiness as 
their owners do. Plenty of house elves actually are happy because 
they work for masters they like and so never come up against the 
bars of their cage, but the bars are still there. Liking to serve 
others is *not* the same thing as liking to be forced to serve 
others against your will whether you like it or not. Mother Theresa 
dedicated her life to serving others; she wasn't anybody's slave.

To me if there's anything simple it's that the slavery part is 
wrong. If we've got a house elf who doesn't like his master your 
solution seems to be to wait until he has a master he likes or until 
he decides he likes the one he's got (even though this might never 
happen). To me the much simpler solution is: the house elf should be 
able to choose his own situation and get out of one that's 
unacceptable to him--iow, have more freedom. It's most important to 
protect those elves who do or might find themselves in a situation 
that makes them unhappy. I can't think of any reason a Wizard should 
have the right to own a house elf against the house elves' will.

> > Magpie:
> > Liking to *serve* is not the same as wanting to be *owned.*
> 
> Shelley:
> But again, it is us humans who are making that artificial 
distinction. I do 
> not see in canon where the House Elves themselves make that 
distinction. 
> Kreacher's fight is that he was taken away from "serving" his 
mistress, the 
> portrait, not necessarily that ownership was transferred to Harry. 
Once he 
> respected Harry, then he was more than happy to "serve" Harry.

Magpie:
You don't see in canon where house elves make that distinction? 
Dobby and Kreacher both make it very loudly--"I won't! I won't!" 
says Kreacher when the will is read. Of course Kreacher's fight is 
against the trasferring of his ownership to Harry! He doesn't want 
to serve Harry and he didn't want to serve Sirius, which is who he 
was serving before Harry--not his mistress' portrait. (And even if 
his problem was that he was taken away from serving the portrait he 
wanted to serve, that's still making the same distinction--Kreacher 
doesn't get to serve who *he* wants to serve.) 

Yeah, once he respected Harry he was happy to serve Harry--he's 
happy when he's serving somebody he respects. He was *not* happy 
serving Harry in HBP and he was *not* happy serving Sirius in OotP. 
That's most of his part in canon he suffers as an unwilling slave in 
service to masters he doesn't want that you're glossing over 
with "once he respected Harry..." The slavery was most obvious when 
he didn't respect Harry. His coming to respect him might give the 
illusion that it's not slavery, but the real test comes when 
Kreacher doesn't want to serve him, at which time he's forced to 
serve him because he's a slave. As long as they are slaves, House 
Elves' well-being rests on trusting the good will of their 
individual masters. 

I would say the same is true for the other elves. I think all the 
elves at Hogwarts, for instance, who probably make no distinction 
between serving and slavery now because they're happy, might find 
themselves as miserable as Kreacher if Voldemort took over and they 
now belonged to him and he ordered them to torture each other for 
his amusement.

Shelley:
 
> I really think we are going to have to agree to disagree if you 
insist House 
> Elves are slaves, and cannot see the possibility that it was the 
House Elves 
> themselves who put themselves in the predicament they are in, 
rather than 
> the mean old Wizards having forced them into it.

Magpie:
I didn't say anything about how this came about, "mean old wizards" 
or no. For all I know House Elves put the enchantment on themselves 
and the self-absorbed wizards are just enjoying the results and 
liking to be slave-owners. That doesn't change the fact that canon 
shows quite clearly that House Elves are capable of having desires 
that are at odds with their slavery, and when that happens it causes 
them pain. It's not the slavery that brings them pleasure, it's 
doing good work for people they want to please.


Shelley:
 Because the legislation 
> that you would enact to "correct any wrongs" would be totally 
different if 
> you had to respect the House Elf wishes to serve a master. That's 
exactly 
> where I think Hermione gets it all wrong- she sees slavery from a 
human 
> point of view, not from a House Elf point of view, and the idea 
that so FEW 
> Wizards go along with her idea tells me that she is missing the 
mark as far 
> as understanding of these creatures goes.

Magpie:
Yes, Hermione gets it wrong because she doesn't see House Elves at 
all. But one can right the wrong of slavery while still respecting 
the wish of a House Elf to serve Wizards. I can understand things 
from a house elf's pov without pretending I don't see where they're 
misunderstanding things (as evidenced by canon).

Of course Wizards don't go along with Hermione's idea--they're 
benefitting from House Elf slavery and most of them probably never 
even see a house elf, much less see one suffering or think about the 
ethics of slavery. And the House Elves don't because to them 
Hermione's not offering them anything, she's just encouraging them 
to disgrace themselves. She's not even speaking the same language  
using an abstract concept of "freedom." I'm not convinced there 
couldn't be better understanding with a little effort.

> Magpie:
> We don't know whether house elves can be bought or sold. The only
> ones we ever meet are already owned. But you seem to be implying 
that
> if house elves don't deign to lower themselves to serve a family 
who
> live in a shack they're not really owned, as if they would refuse 
to
> serve a master if he didn't have a nice house. But we see that
> Kreacher has to serve Harry whether he deigns to or not. We don't 
see
> any house elves looking down their noses at houses. They talk more
> about their owners and get attached to them than the houses.

Shelley:
I see this point as really important, because if you take the view 
that House Elves WANT to serve, then they consider it to be a higher 
honor to serve a large house, and not any honor at all to do small 
tasks tasks that the humans could do themselves. The larger the 
house, the more the prestigue for the House Elf. Thus, serving in a 
shack would give them no pleasure, for they really wouldn't be 
needed at all.

Magpie:
That would still require the elves to have a choice of who or where 
they serve, which they don't have once they're enslaved. If the 
owner moves to a shack the elf serves in a shack. (Not that I agree 
with this necessarily--I think the House Elves we've seen who love 
their masters would happily serve them anywhere doing anything, and 
we've no canon for this idea to begin with.) Wizards really don't 
care what kind of house would give a house elf the most pleasure.

-m