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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183750

> > > 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.

Magpie:
I think that's a valid interpretation of what's presented in canon--I 
agree it's the conclusion everybody reaches there. But not every 
reader agrees with that premise about slavery. I don't happen to 
agree with it, for example. I think the set-up between Wizards and 
Elves is inherently bad and nothing in elves' psychology makes them 
need to be slaves, just to serve. It's just as destructive to Elf 
psychology as it would be to a human to have to serve someone they 
don't want to serve.

Pippin: 
> 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.

Magpie:
Kreacher has no natural psychological need to belong to Harry or 
Sirius. He wants to belong to someone else.

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.

Magpie:
But you don't literally own your spouse. This isn't a metaphor for 
elves, they're actually owned.

Pippin: 
> 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.

Magpie:
But feel wretched and depressed when they're owned by somebody they 
don't want to be owned by. Iow, the unfairness of the situation 
actually is a problem for elves, they just don't talk about it as 
wanting their freedom. We actually do see them wanting the freedom to 
choose their masters.

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. 

Magpie:
Again, I agree. It creates a situation where slavery is okay as a 
concept (without making any argument for humans being slaves). I just 
don't happen to agree that slavery with the premise. For me, House 
Elf slavery carries with it some of the same wrongs as human slavery, 
because I don't think the objection to slavery is only that a 
particular human doesn't want to be a slave. What you've described 
there to me isn't an anti-slavery argument, since slavery as a 
concept is being argued positively, just while taking it for granted 
that of course none of the human characters want to be slaves. If a 
person was like a house elf it would be okay for them too in that 
case. There are women who believe women should be subservient to 
their husbands, for instance, and they can do that, but I don't think 
there should be laws that force them to do that even if they want 
them. There are people who like to be slaves and set up a 
slave/master relationship--usually it's a sexual need. But they're 
not actually slaves because that's a illegal. They indulge the need 
but don't lose their rights. 

Pippin: 
> IMO, there's an overall point in the book that you can't argue with
> psychology. 

Magpie:
I accept this point being made in the books but if it is, I still 
find this idea completely self-serving and shallow on the point of 
wizards. Hey, there's just nothing they can do. Far be it for them to 
argue with the psychology of House Elves that makes them want to be 
owned. Even when two out of the three elves we meet have storylines 
where they are suffering because they don't want to be owned by the 
people who own them.

Pippin:
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.)

Magpie:
Yeah, I would agree with that premise too being in the books. But I 
still think that in many cases, including house elves, it's just a 
self-serving rationalization for taking advantage of others or 
failing to make an effort that would lead to something better.

> 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>.

Magpie:
I assume she will continue the advocacy she had in DH. Which as 
you've argued here can be pro-slavery for House Elves (because she 
believes it fulfills some psychological need for them to be owned) 
but thinking masters should treat their slaves well.

-m