Wands and Wizards...Again (Was: Epilogue ...)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 183741

> Montavilla47:
> I don't know if the point is worth arguing, but if humans don't have
a psychological need to serve, then I wonder how volunteer
organizations, monasteries, convents, and temples ever get organized.
> 
> 
> > Montavilla47:
> > > Does it seem like I have a problem when I point out that the
> > conclusion she reaches is that slavery is okay as long as you
treat your slaves well?

Pippin:
Didn't you just answer your own question here? The premise of the
books is slavery would be tolerable (not "okay" -- who but a House-elf
would  *want* to be Kreacher?) if the slaves were treated well *and*
it fulfilled some psychological need to be a slave. It is not okay if
the slaves are treated well but it only fulfills the psychological
needs of the master.

It seems that most House-elves do have a "natural" psychological need
to belong to wizards. They're not magically brainwashed as Hermione
thought.  Dobby is not immune to the House-elf enchantments, so it
can't be  enchantments that make House-elves want to be owned. 

This isn't so far-fetched. We use ownership language in RL for
relationships that are okay. I belong to my spouse, my family, my
religion, I even belong to HPfGU. I would feel horrible if any of them
rejected me, and deeply insulted if any of them insinuated that I'd be
happier if I left.

However, AFAIK we humans have never felt that we should belong to our
employers. If we bond to them emotionally, it's generally beside the
work relationship, not because of it.  But except for Dobby,
House-elves do feel they should belong to their employers, and they
feel rejected or insulted if they are offered their freedom.

I think the books show clearly that slavery is horrible for humans
because humans don't have any psychological need to be slaves. They
make this point through satire, by showing how differently people
would behave if they did. 

IMO, there's an overall point in the book that you can't argue with
psychology. I think  this is what bothers people and gets mistaken for
a belief in predestination. Instead of showing that poisonous
toadstools can change their spots, the books showed that  poison can
be put to necessary and positive ends (killing slugs, for example.)


Montavilla:
> There is absolutely no indication from the books that Hermione 
> will continue to work for House-Elf rights, or to end the
institution, however poco a poco.  Just as there is no indication in
the books  that the anti-werewolf legislation will ever be overturned,
now  that the only civilized werewolf in the wizarding world is dead.

Pippin:
Hermione's last word on the subject is to proclaim her constant
advocacy for Elf-rights to Griphook. Just as with her desire for Ron,
Hermione appeared to lose interest after every setback, but she never
really did.  Why should her future life be any different?

She's not a person who gives up on anything she wants. And you can't
argue with psychology <g>.


Pippin