House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 180978


> Betsy Hp:
> Ooh!  Loaded words! *bg*  It's not really me "insisting" that house-
elf slavery "must" inform on RW slavery.  It's JKR in introducing us
to the concept through a slave aching to be free, and then 
introducing us to two other slaves in moments when their owners are
subjecting them to a great deal of anguish.  IOWs, it's really hard
for me to work with the idea that all house-elves are happy with 
their lot when the three we get to know are so obviously miserable. <snip>
> 

Carol responds:
First, forgive me, but I don't know what "inform on" means. I thought
it meant reporting a rule-breaker. <eg>

As for JKR "insisting" that House-Elf slavery must, erm, comment on?
be analogous to? be the same as? RW slavery, that's your
interpretation. (Of course, we can bring in the interviews, but since
they're so contradictory and unhelpful, I'd just as soon stay with the
books).

Let's look at what really happens in the books, shall we?

Dobby the odd-ball House-Elf is unhappy serving "bad Dark wizards" who
abuse him. Alone among the House-Elves that we encounter, he has
decided that Harry Potter, who "defeated" the Dark Lord as a baby by
having the spell intended to kill him deflected back onto his would-be
murderer by no intention or act of his own, is the champion of
House-Elves. (Kreacher, we learn much later, has a much different idea
of which Wizard was the champion of House-Elves.) Dobby is not so much
"aching to be free" as suffering intolerable abuse and "aching" to
serve the noble Harry Potter instead of his enemies. His anxiety in
CoS is entirely for Harry's life (which he ironically attempts to save
by further endangering it, hexing his broom a la Quirrell). He never
asks for freedom; he merely points out that he's compelled to serve
his "family" and must punish himself if he disobeys or speaks ill of
them. Granted, he's overjoyed to receive Harry's dirty sock,
accidentally "given" to him by Lucius Malfoy, but I've already
discussed what constitutes "freedom" for Dobby. Certainly, he's free
from the Malfoys, but only to choose a new Wizard master, and he's
still compelled to punish himself when he speaks ill of the new
mistress of Hogwarts, Professor Umbridge. (Whether that's cultural
conditioning or an enchantment that still applies after he's "free," I
can't say.)

Kreacher's being subjected to "a great deal of anguish" seems to me to
be an exaggeration. Yes, Sirius abuses him psychologically, but he
seems to take about as much damage from that as Harry does from Snape.
IoW, the abuse (which is a far cry from the physical abuse that Dobby
suffers) merely inflames his contempt for and hatred of the master who
broke the heart of Kreacher's poor mistress. ("They say he's a
murderer, too." Kreacher has no fondness for criminals, as his
attitude toward the aptly nicknamed Dung attests.) Kreacher *chooses*
to wear a dirty rag instead of a clean tea towel. *He* changes his
appearance and behavior, willingly serving Harry as soon as he
considers Harry worthy of his service.

As for Winky's being subjected to "a great deal of anguish," the only
anguish she suffers as the Crouches' servant is Crouch Sr.'s ignoring
her fear of heights. But it was Winky's own idea to let Barty Jr. see
the TWT. Had she not suggested that and Barty Sr. not given in, the
entire plot of GoF could not have happened. HRH misread what's
happening when she's trying to drag the recalcitrant Barty Jr. back to
the tent. She's not being magically punished for leaving the tent. Her
anguish (no quotation marks here) begins when Crouch Sr. "frees" her
for reasons that he doesn't fully disclose (though Winky knows what
they are). She does not blame Crouch Sr. for dismissing "bad Winky."
She wants to come back to the master who needs her (and indeed he
does, being under the Imperius Curse and trying to fight it). Neither
Winky nor Kreacher wants to be free. Both are loyal to masters or
mistresses whom they can no longer serve (the Blacks other than
renegade Sirius being dead and Winky being "freed").

You can't just read the text to fit your interpretation or assume
that, because sci-fi and fantasy literature in general equates fantasy
slavery to RL human slavery (an unprovable contention, BTW), that JKR
is also doing so. Her House-Elves are obviously derived from
antecedents in folklore, with differences to fit the needs of her
plots, just as her witches, wizards, mythical beasts, hags, giants,
etc. are derived from mythology and folklore. (Hogwarts blends the
previously separate worlds of mythology/folklore and British boarding
schools. House-Elves as Wizard servants does something similar.
Neither "slavery" nor education is the same in the WW as it is in the
Muggle world, however analogous it may be in some respects.)

> Betsy Hp:
> I see the reluctance to call a slave a slave as avoiding the  delving.  

Carol:
And perhaps the insistence that House-Elf servitude is "slavery,"
ignoring canon evidence and rational arguments to the contrary, is,
erm, begging the question? We are "delving," believe me. No one here
is blithely taking the position that House-Elf "slavery" is different
from human slavery for granted, and the idea that it perhaps ought to
be called by a different name is not "avoiding the delving" or hiding
from the truth but noting that the word "slavery" has the wrong
connotations and the reality of slavery as it has historically been
practiced is different from the *enchantment* that magically binds
House-Elves to a particular place or family and from whatever compels
them to serve Wizards, which seems to be a combination of their own
psychology (the will to serve seems to be something they're born with)
and some sort of enchantment that has no parallel, none whatever, in
the history of RL slavery, in which *some* human beings are compelled
by other human beings to be slaves.

ALL House-Elves, even the "free" Dobby either serve or desire to serve
Wizards. That cannot be said of human slaves. It was never true that
all Black people were slaves, much less that they all *wanted* to
serve White people. (Not all slaves were or are Black; not all masters
were White. Some African natives sold other African natives from
different tribes into slavery. As others have pointed out, Black
slaves were sold in the market like cattle or produce in the American
South. Nothing remotely comparable occurs with House-Elves.)

Betsy HP:
We are talking about creatures who are in a position where their
owners can do *anything* to them. 

Carol:
"Creatures." *Not* humans. And, again, you are exaggerating. Except
for Dobby, who is forced to iron his hands by the enchantment that
binds him to the Malfoys, and the anonymous House-Elf whom Slughorn
uses to test for poison, we don't see House-Elves being forced to do
anything horrendous. Follow the Malfoy boy (but not report anything
bad about him). Work in the kitchens (which they enjoy doing). Bring
Hepzibah Smith some boxes. Serve refreshments at Slughorn's party.
They *refuse* to clean the Gryffindor common room because they're
insulted by Hermione's attempt to trick them into "freeing"
themselves. They don't want to be free, thank you very much.

Betsy:
ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. 

Carol:
Erm, what? Kreacher is still alive at the end of the story. If you
mean that Regulus "forced him to kill himself," Regulus didn't know
why Voldemort needed a House-Elf and naively volunteered Kreacher for
the "honor." Once he knew what Voldemort had done, he sacrificed
*himself* to steal Voldemort's Horcrux and made sure that Kreacher
went back to 12 GP with it. Like Harry with Dumbledore before they
entered the cave, he was ordered to leave *Regulus* to die and save
himself (along with the locket that he was supposed to destroy). Not
even Voldemort (who was not Kreacher's master) forced him to kill
himself (though he certainly expected him to do so). The Dark Lord
underestimated Kreacher's abilities and his loyalty.

Betsy HP:
> He was forced to betray a family he loved for his owner.

Carol:
When? How so? I'm afraid that I simply don't know what you're talking
about. The only person that Kreacher "betrayed" (and I think that's an
exaggeration since he merely went to the family member to whom he felt
most loyal and was used by her and her husband) was Sirius, the master
whom *he* felt had betrayed the Black family's values and broken his
mother's (Kreacher's mistress's) heart.

Betsy:
  Dobby was forced to torture himself for his owner. 

Carol:
For his owner? It was the enchantment--not placed by the Malfoys--that
forced him to punish himself (though, granted, the Malfoys also abused
him for their own pleasure--not a necessary component of House-Elf
servitude, merely an indication that the Malfoys were "bad Dark wizards."

Betsy:
 And Winky was brutally reminded that she was property, not family, by
a man she obviously loved, her owner.

Carol:
Brutally "freed," do you mean? She would have much preferred to remain
"property," serving the master who needed her. ("Winky is doing much
more than cleaning house!" as she snippily informs Harry or Hermione
when they "is nosing into her master's business." Quoted from memory
from GoF, so pardon any errors.)
>
Betsy: 
> It's a horror, imo.  And to try and back away from it by calling it
something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat it. <snip>

Carol:
The "horror" is the enchantment that makes them punish themselves, not
their service to wizards in and of itself. No one is trying to
"candy-coat" it. we're trying to examine it objectively to determine
its nature and its differences from RL slavery. PLEASE don't attribute
motives to fellow posters that they don't have just because we
disagree with you.
Betsy HP:

> Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't exact.

Carol:
Which is exactly what the rest of us have been arguing. Thank you.

Betsy: 
> Because while JKR wanted us to hate the Malfoys for owning a slave,
 she wanted us to still love slave-owning Harry. <snip>

Carol:
First, I thought that you and I agreed about the futility of trying to
determine JKR's intentions. However, for the sake of argument, if she
did "intend" for us to hate the Malfoys, it was not because they were
"slave owners" (or, more correctly, House-Elf owners). It was because
they *abused* their House-Elf. Harry, who inherited a House-Elf
against his will, cannot free him even after the defeat of Voldemort
because Kreacher doesn't want to be freed. (Even Sirius says as much,
IIRC.) We are not supposed to "love slave-owning Harry." We are
(assuming that I've guessed JKR's "intention" correctly) supposed to
admire Harry as the savior of the WW who has come to terms with
Kreacher and learned to treat his House-Elf (not slave) as that
House-Elf (not slave) wants to be treated--and that includes letting
him serve "Master Harry" Master Harry's favorite treacle tarts--or
bacon sandwiches. 

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > <snip>
> > > A house-elf *cannot* say no to their master. It doesn't matter >
> what they're asked to do, it doesn't matter what their personal 
feelings are on the matter, a house-elf CANNOT SAY NO.
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > Then what's this enchantment that makes them iron their hands if >
they disobey their masters?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That would be the enchantment that makes a house-elf unable to say 
> no.  What makes a house-elf a slave. *bg*

Carol:
No. Sorry. They're two different things. The enchantment that forces a
House-Elf to punish himself is not the same thing as a House-Elf being
owned by a particular family whom he is apparently bound to serve by a
different enchantment. Eliminate the enchantment that forces the
House-Elf to punish himself and he'll still be a "slave" by your
definition (serving the family that owns him, in most cases
willingly). He will simply no longer be forced to punish himself for
disobedience. As for not saying "no"--if he couldn't say "no" and
refuse to obey the order, he wouldn't be compelled to punish himself
for disobedience, would he?

> 
> > >>Carol, who thinks ending *that* enchantment (if possible) would>
resolve the problem
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I agree.  Because at that point, the house-elf would no longer be 
owned.  They'd have choice.

Carol:
Forgive me, but you're mistaken. They would still be owned. They would
simply stop punishing *themselves* for disobedience. Suppose that the
Malfoys owned Dobby, abusing him as they do for whatever reason, and
he secretly went to Harry Potter, as he does in CoS, but he could
speak ill of them and reveal their secrets without having to punish
himself. We'd have no banging of heads on dressers or bashing heads
with lamps in Harry's room. *The Malfoys are not there. THEY are not
making Dobby punish himself. He is doing it without their knowledge
because the enchantment compels him to do it, NOT because the Malfoys
own him.* As for the choice to disobey when that enchantment is
removed, I doubt that House-Elves who weren't abused would make that
choice. 

The question, of course, is whether that enchantment can be removed.
"Freeing" a House-Elf by giving him clothes doesn't do it, as Dobby
clearly demonstrates. And "freeing" a House-Elf against his or her
will is just another form of abuse.

Carol, happy that we both think that the self-punishment enchantment
is a bad thing but not agreeing that it's the same thing as ownership,
which exists in RL slavery without any such enchantment