House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 180951

Marion Ros wrote:
>
> I've been reading this discussion for the past few days, and I'm so
appalled by some of the arguments that I'm forced out of lurker-dom.
> 
> The argument apparantly goes like this: "Elves are not slaves
because it's in their nature to be servile. They are happy serving
wizards. They don't want to be free; look at the appalled reaction of
Winky and the Hogwarts Elves to the freed Dobby.

Carol responds:

All of which is perfectly canonical, right? You forgot to include
Winky's devastation at being "freed" (fired) by the Wizard that she
still loves and regards as her master.

Marion:
 You don't want to be a mean wizard and free them all, do you? You'd
have desperate, drunk Elves wandering around. 

Carol responds:
This statement is a bit of an exaggeration. However, we do know that
Dobby wandered, homeless and jobless, for a year or more (end of Cos
until some point during GoF) looking for a Wizard family that would
pay him and finding none. We don't know how he survived, but it could
not have been a comfortable life. Had Winky not joined him soon
afterwards, going with him to Hogwarts, she would have been in an even
worse plight. You would think that working for Dumbledore--paid
employment with ideal working conditions (if you're a House-Elf) would
make her happy. Instead, she quickly becomes a miserable drunk.
"Freedom" for her amounts to disgrace, not to mention that she longs
to be reunited with her beloved master. Had it not been for
Dumbledore, "freedom" might have meant starvation for both of them. 

What would happen to the Elves of Hogwarts if they were suddenly
"freed"? Would they just keep their jobs as if nothing had happened
and refuse wages, time off, and clothes (the mark of a disgraced
House-Elf), in which case "freedom" is meaningless? Or would they be
magically evicted from Hogwarts because their connection to it was
severed, in which case they'd be in exactly the same houseless,
jobless state as the wandering Dobby of the PoA year, perhaps in some
cases becoming as miserable as Winky? (Not drunk, however, unless they
had access to butterbeer.)

If not, please state what you think would happen if the "slaves" were
"freed."

Marion:

> Besides, Dobby was a weirdo, an anomaly,

Carol:
As indeed he was. No other Elf in canon aspires to be free. Even Harry
says, "Dobby was weirder" when Ron says of the not-yet "freed" Winky,
"So that's a House-Elf. Weird, aren't they?"

Marion:
 and Elves aren't really human after all, so you can't call them slaves. 

Carol responds:
They aren't human. They're half human size. They have huge eyes, no
hair (unless you count ear hair), tennis-ball sized eyes, and noses
like snouts or tomatoes. They have different powers from Wizards
(including wandless nonverbal magic). They are no more human than
Centaurs or Merpeople.

Slavery is the condition of one human being owning another human
being. RL slavery exists and can exist in no other form. We are
talking about imaginary beings here, not people. And so far as I can
see, they have no other purpose and no other desire than to serve
Wizards. (Please show me canon evidence to the contrary if you can
find it. Even the "Free Elf" Dobby continues to serve Wizards,
Dumbledore for the low wages he talked DD into giving him--DD
originally offered too much money--and Harry by choice.) Conflict
occurs only when the Wizard abuses the House-Elf (Dobby) or when the
House-Elf cannot or will not respect a master he regards as unworthy
(Kreacher). A happy, devoted House-Elf who is suddenly "freed" (Winky)
creates problems of another sort, with "freedom" being far worse from
the House-Elf's perspective than working for a master whom she was
proud and honored to serve.

This is not slavery. It's either voluntary (willing) or involuntary
(unwilling) servitude. And a House-Elf *can* disobey his master, so
long as he punishes himself for the disobedience. *That's* where the
problem comes in, as Hermione points out in "Kreacher's Tale."

Marion:
> But you're not to abuse them either.

Carol responds:
Surely you agree on this point--that House-Elf abuse is wrong and
should be discontinued, even outlawed if possible? No one on this list
is saying that the Malfoys had the right to abuse Dobby or even that
Sirius Black had the right to treat Kreacher contemptuously (despite
provocation from the dirty, disrespectful devotee of the Family
Black). House-Elf abuse is no more desirable than child abuse, animal
abuse, or any other form of abuse.

Marion:
> You're to be kind to them and let them serve you, fetch sandwiches
for you etc (this way they remain happy) and then all will be well."
<snip>

Carol responds:
You're looking at the end of the book, at a point when Harry has just
defeated an enemy who has terrorized the WW on and off for nearly
thirty years. The House-Elf question (assuming that anyone except
Hermione cares about it) is not on the table. The only question for
Harry at this moment is what to do with the House-Elf he unwillingly
inherited, who has now transferred his allegiance to Harry. And since
House-Elves *like* to work (as Dobby states and as we see via the
Hogwarts House-Elves), *why not* ask him for a sandwich, which he can
make much more easily than Harry, being able to Apparate in and out of
the Hogwarts kitchen? He's good at it, he enjoys it, he would be
honored to serve. He might even be insulted if "Master Harry"
attempted to get his own sandwich. And he would certainly be offended,
if not broken-hearted, if Harry "freed" (fired) him. He's not a
Hogwarts Elf; 12 GP is his home. I have no doubt whatever that he
wants to return at the first opportunity and serve Harry there. (When
Harry's not home, he can have cozy chats with his dear old mistress.)
Seriously, imagine the distress that Harry would inflict on Kreacher
by "freeing" him. He would probably go mad, and he would certainly not
find employment elsewhere.

Marion:
> I want to ask you to look at the way men in Western civilisation
have looked unto women until a good hundred years ago (although I bet
there are still plenty men - and women - today who think exactly the
same. <snip>

> And no, I'm not claiming that women are slaves (although throughout
history women *were* often chattel), I'm just trying to show how silly
the notion is that Elves *want* to be slaves and are appalled at the
idea of freedom that this is a legitamite cause of keeping them as slaves.

Carol responds:
The problem is, women, as you state, are not slaves. More important,
they *are* human, so the arguments that your imaginary Victorian
gentleman spouted are spurious. House-Elves, however, are *not* human.
Their nature, so far as we can see from canon, *is* different from
human nature. So arguments that are invalid when applied to women are
not necessarily so when applied to imaginary, nonhuman creatures that
*canonically* like work and, so far as we see, work only for wizards.
(Granted, problems occur when and Elf and its master are mismatched,
but switch Dobby for Kreacher in CoS and they might both be happy.)
> 
Marion:
> The whole issue should not be 'do Elves want to be slaves', but 'is
slavery a good thing or a bad thing'. 

Carol:
We've covered this ground already. Surely, what House-Elves want is
more important than the term used to describe their relationship to
Wizards. To disregard what the House-Elves want is to impose the will
of Wizards upon them. That way unhappiness lies.

Whether the condition of the House-Elves is slavery or not is one of
the key points we're debating. You can't just take that point for granted.

Nor is their any point in arguing that *human* slavery is bad. No
human being has the right to compel another human being to serve him.
No one on this list is disputing that point.

The question is, if House-Elves are compelled by their nature or by
some long forgotten enchantment to serve human beings, and if they
like doing so (except under unusual circumstances, as with Dobby and
Kreacher), why not make the best of the situation? Why not give the
House-Elves what they want, the opportunity to work for Wizards they
respect under optimum conditions (no abuse, no self-punishment if it
can be avoied, clean tea towels and sleeping quarters, clean beds,
decent working hours)? They don't want clothes (the mark of a
disgraced Elf) and most of them don't have any use for money (Dobby
buys socks and Winky, evidently, squanders her wages on butterbeer).
The Hogwarts House-Elves appear to represent the ideal, in contrast to
Dobby, Kreacher, Winky, and possibly Hokey. Why not replicate those
conditions and make the House-Elves happy, in contrast to "freeing"
them, which, as we see in canon, would make them miserable?

Marion:
If you decide that no sentient being should be owned by another, then
you have to free all Elves from the enchantment that keeps them in
ownership by wizards. 

Carol:
And exactly who is going to decide that, assuming that the enchantment
can be broken for all House-Elves at once? And what about the
consequences, if the House-Elves are suddenly homeless?

Marion:
> Elves could then choose to serve or not. They could choose to obey. 

Carol:
Could they make such a choice? You're assuming human psychology.
Maybe, unless conditions are as extreme as they were with Dobby and
the Malfoys, a House-Elf simply *can't* disobey, either by nature or
conditioning. I'm willing to bet that most House-Elves would choose to
go on exactly as they were. And I'm betting that they *wouldn't*
choose to be fired (as human employees who disobey an order generally
are). They'd rather be good House-Elves and make the Wizards happy,
which is what House-Elves *do.*

Think about it. A "free" House-Elf disobeys an order and is dismissed
from his position, or he chooses not to serve a particular Wizard and
has to search for another one. We have a word for that, and it isn't
"freedom." It's "unemployment." I doubt that many House-Elves would
choose that option.

Marion:

What is also necessary is an 'out'. If a Elf would no longer want to
serve a certain wizard, and this wizard would sent her away and warn
all other wizards that the Elf was a 'bad elf' or such nonsense, the
fear of being rejected by other potential employers might force the
Elf to obey when he or she would rather not. So there should be an
'safe-house' for Elves. But all this would not be too difficult to
arrange. What truly need to change is the *wizards* attitude towards
Elves, not the (culture-induced) nature of Elves'.
>
Carol:
Well, at least you see that "freeing" the Elves would produce some
potential problems and could not be done all at once. But I don't see
you suggesting that House-Elves would choose to do anything except
serve Wizards, as they've always done.

The thing is, we don't *know* that House-Elves' nature is "culturally
induced." (Isn't that a contradiction in terms, in any case?) We don't
know whether the enchantment that binds them to a particular family is
breakable through anything except giving them clothes. And giving
clothes to a House-Elf who regards clothing as the mark of a disgraced
Elf is simply not going to work.

There are good reasons why SPEW failed. One is the attitude of the
Wizards, as you say. But the main reason is the attitude of the
House-Elves.

The Hogwarts House-Elves are happy. They like their work. They don't
want to be free. That's canon. And they don't care one way or another
what label human beings want to place on their servitude.

Why not let them be what they want to be, whether that means making
Harry a sandwich or willingly following Draco without sleep, as the
"Free Elf" Dobby did?

Carol, who thinks that "they aren't human" and "they like working for
Wizards" are the key components that we should be considering, and
that imposing freedom on them against their will has already been
shown to be both unworkable and undesirable