House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 181000

Pippin:
Replying to an earlier post of Betsy's -- I have a fresh point to make
so be patient with me...

> Betsy Hp:
> I've never liked that aspect of the prime directive *g*: to see 
> behavior that I deem as not good behavior, but I'll just let it go 
> because who am I to judge? 

Pippin:
I agree with Magpie, it's not really a prime directive situation. Nobody
is trying to preserve the house-elf culture in a pristine state. 

Betsy_Hp:
 I do agree with the idea that I can't 
> just swoop in with my superior armies and completely remake a 
> society.  But I do feel I can judge or apply my own personal values.  
> What use are my values unless I actually use them?  (For a RL 
> example: I think female circumcision is an abominable practise that 
> speaks very ill of those societies that allow or encourage the 
> practice.  It's not my society, but I feel quite free, and in fact 
> almost duty bound, to judge such behavior.)

Pippin:
But then what? What good is your judgment unless you try to put
it into action? Methods that might recommend themselves
in   our culture, such as protest movements and reconstructive
surgery, won't be effective if those you want to help aren't receptive
to them. 

Hermione tries to launch a protest movement, but
she is stymied. Protest movements run on shame and the wizards
don't see any reason to feel ashamed of what they're doing. As
Hagrid sees it, loyal elves are happy and well-provided for, only
oddballs like Dobby have a hard time.  Harry doesn't buy into
Hermione's rhetoric but neither does he argue against it the way
Ron does, at least until Kreacher betrays him in OOP. 

But Harry's judgement reverses when he discovers the fate of Hokey,
a loyal elf who is nonetheless abused by the ministry. It's then that
he starts to see some point in SPEW. It really comes home to
both him and Ron when they see how Kreacher's loyalty was abused
by Voldemort. Hermione is able to win them over by showing that
house-elf slavery violates the norms that they already accept,
not the norms she thinks they should accept.

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, those are arguments *not* being used. 
<snip>

> > >>Pippin:
> > Nor was the idea that slaves are not human ever widespread in our   
> > culture, much less considered manifestly obvious to everybody.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, sure it was.  Eugenics was all about it.  

Pippin:
If we're talking about the US, the eugenics movement didn't get off 
the ground until slavery had ended, and it reached its heyday in the 1920's and 
30's. Contemporary defenders of slavery were more likely to cite economics or 
theology as the grounds for their beliefs, IMO. But no one in canon uses such
arguments. 

Differences like these are what make me think that the inclusion of slavery in
the books is not intended to make us take a fresh look at real-world slavery.

 Furthermore the psychology of house-elves is different in one
very radical way that no one has touched on yet.

The human slave owner may  be suspected of falsely claiming that his 
slaves are happy, since as we all know, and Harry proves through 
numerous detentions, humans can work both hard and well at jobs
they hate.

But no house-elf seems capable of this. 

Kreacher can be forced to spy on Draco, but cannot be made to deliver
useful information. Since he's obeyed his instructions to the letter he
doesn't even need to punish himself.  The same conditions applied at
Grimmauld Place, where Kreacher's "cleaning" didn't accomplish anything.
When it comes to work-to-rule  job actions, Kreacher's an expert.

The Hogwarts Elves function the same way. When they're unhappy, they
don't  perform, whether it's refusing to clean Gryffindor Tower
or pushing the Trio out of the kitchens. Winky is the same, incapacitating
herself with alcohol. House-elves will do the most noisome taks,
even drink poison, for a master they respect. But unlike humans, it
doesn't seem you can get work out of them if they're unhappy. IMO,
that's why Hagrid can state flatly that the house-elves are happy --
he knows if they weren't happy they wouldn't work. 

Nor can House-elves conceal their emotions even
when it would be in their interest to do so. Kreacher laughs as
he tells Dumbledore where Sirius has gone, giving himself away
against his own interests.

So it would seem that except in those not-rare-enough instances where 
a house-elf owner would rather have a punching-bag than a useful
servant, house-elf owners have an incentive to treat their property
well *from the house-elves' perspective*  that owners of humans 
don't have. And elves who are treated as they wish to be do receive
a form of compensation, since they can and do withhold their labors 
if they are treated otherwise. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> To anyone familiar with scifi, this is exactly what will eventually 
> happen.  Worms *always* turn.  (The current Battlestar Galactica 
> deals with exactly this issue.)  It's why, despite Harry's assurance 
> that all is well, I expect the WW will rupture into destructive 
> violence sooner rather than later.

Pippin:

If the purpose of the house-elf plot arc is  to inform us about
the difference between naive do-goodery and enlightened 
activism, it can end once our heroes understand.

I'm quite familiar with sci-fi, thank you very much. <g> But since
Harry and Hermione know as well as anyone that worms always turn, 
why assume that they aren't doing their best to treat house-elves
as house-elves want to be treated? That all is well with the WW,
as with the Hogwarts Express, not because it has arrived at its
destination but because reasonable progress is being made? 

Pippin