House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180928

Re: House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic 
solutions 


> 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.

a_svirn:
Nope, it is most definitely not voluntary. They are not owned because
they want to. They are owned because they have been for centuries and
that's the way of the WW. And WW stand for Wizarding World, meaning
that they are owned because that's the way of wizards.

Moreover, servitude literally means slavery, so the employment of
this term wouldn't really resolve anything. The term "voluntary
servitude" is actually somewhat of an oxymoron, and was coined by the
sixteenth century political philosopher Etienne de la Boetie in order
to explain the origins of tyranny. Basically he says that tyrants
have power because people give it to them, preferring the slavery of
a concubine to the "natural" state of freedom, and therefore, he
concludes, they deserve what they get. If anyone in the WW fits the
description it is death eaters, not elves.

> Carol:
> House-Elves exist to serve Wizards. 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.

a_svirn:
Which happens with perfect regularity. And becomes the tragedy of
their lives because as a slaves they have no way out.

Carol:
> So we have the Hogwarts House-Elves, happy in their voluntary
> servitude,

a_svirn:
A but what do we know about them? Do we even know that they are
owned? Dobby and Winky aren't. Winky doesn't get paid, but it doesn't
look like she's owned either. We know nothing about the elves of
Hogwarts to judge.

a_svirn