House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180981

> Magpie wrote:
> > <snip>
> You seem to be arguing that since elves 
> > don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, yet 
canon 
> > has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because they 
don't 
> > have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole idea 
> > that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves 
> > acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their 
position.
> ><snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve a
> master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and 
Kreacher
> rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--
free
> to serve Harry Potter (and/or work for dumbledore to earn just 
enough
> money to buy socks. He doesn't want too much time off because he
> "likes work better"). Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it
> voluntarily once he and his new master come to a mutual 
understanding.
> Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable 
drunkard
> because she wants to return to her beloved master.

Magpie:
A will to serve a master they think is deserving is a perfectly fine 
will. It's one they share with plenty of humans. It's a will that 
they're unable to assert when they're owned by somebody else.

Carol:
> Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings call
> freedom? Do they want to vote? Not that I know of. Do they want to
> open a business and become entrepreneurs or write textbooks or 
train
> security Trolls or start an eel farm or open a chocolate factory? 
Not
> that I know of. *They want to work for Wizards in Wizard houses* 
(in
> most cases, one that they or their ancestors have been magically
> associated with for generations or centuries or perhaps millennia).
> What they don't want is to be abused.

Magpie:
Dobby and Kreacher both want freedom when they don't want to serve 
their masters--even that little thing takes a measure of freedom 
they don't have. These other things like the right to vote or open a 
business or start an eel farm aren't freedom. Sure they don't want 
to be abused either--neither do most free people. But Dobby even 
*uses* the word free to describe what he wants. It's so important to 
him that Harry puts it on his tombstone. It changes the way he's 
viewed by every character. How is it not freedom because he's a free 
person who likes to work and that his work consists in large part of 
domestic chores?

Carol: 
> All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf,
> Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who
> treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe 
what
> they say (or what their actions show)?

Magpie:
I don't see how you're believing them when Dobby has asked for 
freedom and you're claiming that what he really wants to be is a 
slave. With Dobby, at least, he does say that he wants freedom. 
Secondly the right to serve a master or mistress that you can 
respect requires that you be able to choose your master, which they 
can't do as long as they're slaves. Dobby and Kreacher both take 
actions to gain some freedom to do what they want rather than what 
their master wants. Dobby is proud of being able to bargain for his 
own salary even if he's making it lower. 

Carol: 
> If, like human slaves, they wanted to be like their masters (making
> money, owning property, *not* working if they can help it), it 
would
> be different. But their nature and their values are clearly not 
ours.

Magpie:
You don't have to want to be like your master in owning property and 
making money to want to be free. 


> Carol, who would be very happy indeed to own a House-Elf, who, in
> turn, would be happy to work for me because I would treat her as 
she
> wants to be treated

Magpie:
You like to think. But if there was ever a conflict she'd be unable 
to seek a mistress who conformed more to her wishes. 

SSSusan:
And yet the whole disregarding of elves not WANTING freedom strikes
me as gliding over something significant, too. You want to get away
from the elves; and I do not want to do so, for that is where I see
the fundamental difference that makes me see this as something
different from human, RW slavery.

Magpie:
Sorry about lumping different arguments together here--a la "DDM!
Snape=awesome guy all around!" It's confusing because people are 
making different arguments from different angles, and I probably 
have been mistaken about what the overall position is sometimes. I 
actually really enjoy this topic--I like looking at what the bizarre 
situation of house elves adds up to in the end.

There *are* real life humans who thrive as slaves. It might not be 
what you'd expect from your average person, but it's not outside 
human nature to choose the security of slavery over freedom. There 
are humans who make exactly this choice--they join cults, for 
instance, where they are exploited even while refusing to leave. I 
actually think an attraction to slavery is a real part of human 
nature (and not just those who are into S&M!).

House elves love of serving others does make their jobs seem like a 
natural fit in this case--since house elves love to do housework and 
humans live in houses, they make a nice fit. That for me leads to 
the obvious question: why this system we're calling or not calling 
slavery? Why not just let them do their thing without actually being 
owned or being unable to choose their own masters when they want to? 
Why'd they have to ruin that, and was it house elves or Wizards who 
ruined it? It seems like the natural thing is being turned into 
something else by them being owned. Nobody's natural state can 
include being "owned" by anyone, because "property" is a man-made 
thing.

There are differences from human slaves, of course--there's plenty 
of specific characteristics to house elves that are unique to them: 
the magical bond, the self-punishment enchantment, their particular 
language, their cultural attitude about being given clothes, the 
special magic they can do, their dress etc. 

Actually, this is making me think of a discussion I had years ago 
with somebody about the Bible. I probably shouldn't go into the 
whole conversation because that's a new kettle of fish, but one 
person said that the slavery mentioned in the Bible "wasn't like US 
slavery" in the same way that house elf ownership is not like human 
slavery. The argument in this case wasn't that the slaves themselves 
had a different attitude towards slavery, but one based on the terms 
of enforcement. But the idea was still that whatever we thought of 
as slavery didn't apply there.

Magpie:
> To use the "just because it looks like slavery doesn't mean it is"
> argument in yet another way, just because house elves look like
> they want to be slaves doesn't mean they actually do.

SSSusan:
Then WHY have they run away from the opportunity to not be slaves? I
don't understand why that point gets pooh-poohed. Several Hogwarts
HEs are offered freedom via Hermione's hats. They run away from
them. Why do we need to assume they don't *actually* want to be
slaves, if they're showing us that they don't want to take the
freedom offered to them?

Magpie:
Because they are looking at it in a short-sighted way? The elves at 
Hogwarts are happy and don't want to leave their situation. But when 
they're in a situation where they're unhappy Dobby and Kreacher *do* 
want to follow their own desires rather than being forced to do 
things that are painful to them. Kreacher wished to be able to serve 
one of the other Blacks rather than Sirius and later wished to serve 
Draco rather than Harry--I believe he says that. If Kreacher is 
really happy with all the conditions of *slavery* (rather than just 
the conditions in which he once served) then why isn't he thrilled 
to help clean out Grimmauld Place or follow Draco or cook nice hot 
meals for Sirius? He's getting what he wants there, isn't he?

I do think that house elves' own understanding should be taken into 
account. That's why Hermione's attempts at freedom are just 
condescending and no more respectful of elves as individuals than 
somebody who doesn't care about them at all. We also have to take 
into account that, as per DH, house elves seem to lack the ability 
to think far enough ahead or even understand things from a wide 
viewpoint. No elf besides Dobby really seems to *understand* 
freedom, so of course Hermione's talk of it makes no sense to them. 
(This inability to understand may very well be a cultural thing 
rather than any limit in their brain power, though.)

That's why it seems to me that any Wizard committed to changing 
things might need to focus on this from their pov rather than the 
elves. They've been given a very big temptation in house elves, 
however it came about (and Wizards already have a weak spot when it 
comes to thinking might makes right). In order for an individual 
house elf owner to keep himself from really crossing the line he'd 
have to have a lot of self-discipline and a real commitment to not 
being a slave-owner despite owning this thing, because even little 
things that wouldn't mean much between friends are tainted by the 
ownershp. For instance, if commitment against what I consider 
slavery was my top priority, I might consider it my duty to tell 
Kreacher to go serve Narcissa or Draco when he indicated he would 
rather do so. At least from my end, if I'd done that, I would be 
treating him as a free person, allowing him the freedom to go where 
he wanted to go. I couldn't insure that Narcissa or Draco would make 
similar choices, of course, but *I* would have stayed committed to 
my position on house elves if that's what it was. (Not saying I 
would have done that, since that would have put me in danger.)

Really that idea would be taking what house elves do and just 
turning it on its head. No matter how eagerly they pushed their 
rights as an individual away, I would artificially give them back. 
They would be handing me the Elder Wand, but I would truly be 
refusing to use it.

Alla:
As in, by introducing reluctant slave owner, the issue is clouded
for us ( people who just do not see it as exact equivalent of human
slavery, similar, but not quite), but if only bad guys were doing
it, we would have no doubt that this is what it is - exact
equivalent of human slavery.

Am I right, Magpie?

Magpie:
Yes, but not because you're morally lacking.:-) Mostly because it's 
the reluctant owners and those who question the lot of house elves 
that make us see the pride house elves take in their situation. It's 
not until GoF when Hermione starts telling house elves they should 
be free that they really get a chance to show how their own culture 
works.  

-m