House elves (WAS: realistic resolutions)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180895

> > Mike:
> > You've always been a pretty objective reader of canon, Magpie, 
where 
> > do you think the house elf sub-plot went? I read Hermione 
indignant 
> > about the slavery existing. She tries to start SPEW, seemingly 
with 
> > the freedom of the house elves in mind. But the house elves make 
it 
> > clear that they don't want her help, they don't want to be free. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> That looks a bit too selective for objectivity. SPEW's only one of
> many elves subplots. You dismiss Dobby as an oddity, but SPEW is an
> oddity too. Hermione is quite comically wrongheaded in her 
approach to
> the problem, on many levels: practical, theoretical, ethical. SPEW 
on
> the whole can be more easily dismissed, than the existence of a 
free
> elf. How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and
> Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even rebelled
> against him. 

Magpie:
I was trying to answer Mike's post and kept getting tangled up, so 
I'm going to piggy back here, because what you say here really sums 
it up for me: "SPEW's only one of many elves subplots." 

Basically, I think the house elves are a collection of ideas that 
are sometimes contradictory (should I really believe that elves' 
loyalty to the good side is as shallow as Kreacher's loyalty to the 
bad?) and sometimes dead ends. I think they also get revised 
according to the needs of the plot. I really don't see a throughline 
in terms of coming to a big lesson about house elves--the biggest 
changes in the story don't seem like developments so much as just 
different needs from one book to the next.

So in the end all I can do is think of what we ended up with and 
what that has to say--and there I really agree with montavilla that 
what I get is something that would be a great lesson for a child 
growing up in a slave owning society who was being instructed on 
treating his inferiors well. The ideas about house elves that stay 
with us are: They're simple-minded, they're happier being owned by 
Wizards, but as an owner one should be kind and they will serve you 
better and love you.

There's some other stuff thrown in along the way: some humor poked 
at misguided and overzealous adolescent liberal reformers, a noble 
slave narrative where the hero earns his most loyal servant through 
honor and charity, showing that this is more binding than money. The 
whole thing is a lot more coherent when I stop trying to put an anti-
slavery spin on it. I still assume that when it comes to people JKR 
is anti-slavery. But in terms of the world she's set up here, all 
the arguments for Elves being free are discarded. Everyone seems to 
see Dobby as a fluke, an exception who proves the rule, rather than 
evidence that all the stuff about house elves biologically needing 
to be owned might be a lie. (I would think slave-owning societies 
love stories about freed slaves who are twice as loyal to their 
masters as before--it seems like that would speak to all the anxiety 
the system would cause in the masters.)

So I really wind up with what Betsy sees here:

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped
> themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing
> to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this
> happening in the books.

Betsy Hp:
Sure you do. Harry and Hermione are perfect examples.

Magpie:
Though they're not hypocritcal if they no longer wrap themselves in 
the mantle of gradual abolitionism since they're no longer talking 
about it. Perhaps their stabs at abolition have just proved to them 
that it's not good for elves. They've moved progressively towards 
the comfortable slave owner end of the scale. First we figured all 
slaves should just be free, with Dobby's introduction and Harry 
passing that test by freeing him. We see Winky in despair and shame 
over being freed. Then we meet Kreacher who could only be freed at 
great danger to the good side so they didn't free him. Then Harry 
inherited a slave who hated him--would he own him in name only to 
protect the interests of the good side but never exploit his power 
over him? Nope, he gave him an order when he needed something done. 
And finally when Kreacher is a willing slave, Harry becomes a 
willing master. 

Carol:
JKR may not have supplied an alternate term, but such a term does
exist in English: "servitude." Servitude can be voluntary or
involuntary. In the case of House-Elves, it's usually voluntary.
House-Elves exist to serve Wizards. 

Magpie:
Yes, servitude can be voluntary or involitary, but slavery removes 
the question--you must serve whether you want to or not. When 
Kreacher wants to serve Harry he does it and when he doesn't want to 
serve Harry he does it. He is compelled to serve involuntarily even 
if he often voluntarily serves. 

>From Harry's pov the only difference is that he needs to be a little 
more careful in how he gives orders. But his power is the same 
either way.

Carol:
That is their nature, their "end,"
their raison d'etre, their be all and end all. They have no other
purpose and no other desire. Their servitude becomes involuntary only
when they hate or despise their masters.

Magpie:
You start with the idea that they have no other purpose or desire 
than to serve Wizards, but then refer to them not wanting to serve 
masters they hate or desire. Kreacher and Dobby both had other 
purposes and desires in mind than serving their masters. The "only 
when..." is the whole problem--that's the thing the slavery takes 
care of, and what makes it not so-called slavery but slavery imo. A 
house elf who leaves the master he doesn't want to serve and finds 
one he does want to serve is a free servant. The one who is owned 
can't leave the master he doesn't want to serve is not free.

-m