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

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183744

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > 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.

Montavilla47:
I like that message, but I don't really see that it comes across
in the book.  I don't think we have any examples of slaves being
treated well, but having their psychological needs ignored at the
same time--which might demonstrate where that doesn't work.

Pippin: 
> 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.

Montavilla47;
The thing that House-Elves really remind me of in real life is the 
old-time relationship between servant and master--as you see it 
in the Edwardian period.  (For three excellent examples, look at 
Upstairs Downstairs, Manor House, or Gosford Park.)

In all three, the servants are shown to identify quite highly with
their masters (although not so much in Gosford Park!), and to 
find their service psychologically fulfilling.  

Although servants were paid, they had almost no say about their
lives and the masters had enormous power over them.  If they 
were dismissed without references, it was almost impossible to 
find work again.  They were meant not to be seen--if a maid was
accidentally caught doing her work by the masters, she was 
supposed to try and act invisible.

Pippin:
> 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. 

Montavilla47:
I don't see the slaves as psychologically that different from people.
Slaves and servants identified with their masters.  The elves are 
more like an exaggeration of that identification.  Winky reminded me
of the nurse in Romeo and Juliet--who was perfectly happy being
a servant and considered herself a part of the Capulet family.  She,
too, would have been horrified if she had to leave it.

Pippin:
> 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.)

Montavilla47:
I like that point very much, Pippin.  I think you're right and that it is
very insightful.