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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183753

> > Magpie:
>  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:
> But that comes under the "treated well" part, doesn't it? If 
they're 
> made to punish themselves, or they are made to serve a master they
> don't want to serve, they're *not* being treated well. 

Magpie:
It's the slavery/ownership part that makes them unable to choose 
their own masters. If they can choose who they work for and when 
they're not slaves. I agree that being owned as property and not 
being able to choose who you serve or how is not being treated well. 
Even if an individual elf is never made unhappy by that situation.

Pippin:
No one in canon
> claims that Kreacher is being treated well when he's being forced to
> serve Sirius or Harry. Sirius doesn't care whether he treats 
Kreacher
> well or not, and HBP Harry appears to think  that Kreacher is 
getting
> off easy, considering.  Dumbledore knows Kreacher is being treated
> badly but appears to regard that as the lesser evil (or the greater
> good, if you prefer) over freeing him to die or be subject to
> Bellatrix and Voldemort.

Magpie:
And they can do that because of the status of House Elves. Maybe 
nobody thinks Kreacher is being treated well in OotP and HBP but they 
use their positions of power against him because they can. If the 
situation's there, they can take advantage of it. Kreacher's 
situation hasn't changed as of DH. His feelings about it have changed 
so he's happy with it now.

 
> > Magpie:
> > Kreacher has no natural psychological need to belong to Harry or 
> > Sirius. He wants to belong to someone else.
> > 
> Pippin:
> Yup. My point is, he wants to belong to and serve some wizard. 
That's
> the psychology of House-elves, which is different from humans in
> canon. He doesn't think like we do, as Hermione puts it. <snip> 
Whereas normally House-elves  seem to want to be owned, and to cook,
> clean and tidy  houses, as  naturally as dogs chase rabbits. 

Magpie:
But Kreacher doesn't have a desire to be owned by Harry or Sirius. So 
does he really have a desire to be owned? He actually doesn't seem to 
truly want to be owned. He wants to belong to somebody in one sense, 
but not belong to somebody like property whose preferences for other 
people don't matter.

Pippin:
> Wizard enchantments enslave the elves so that they have to punish
> themselves for disobedience and so that they can't leave their
> master's house without orders. Nowhere in canon are those practices
> defended as beneficial to elves. But only Hermione thinks Elves in
> general would want to be free in order to escape from them. Even 
Dobby
> doesn't think that. 

Magpie:
If Elves can leave their master and find one they like better than 
they choose and aren't compelled to follow orders of their master 
then whatever knee-jerk reactions House Elves have to the 
word "freedom," they're not slaves. They're more like Dobby, acting 
subservient but free. Right now the ugly slavery question is mostly 
countered by the elves often being so eager to do anything they don't 
have to be forced. If Wizard's actual power and ownership was taken 
away that would imo counter it in a more significant way.

Pippin:
>  Tune in one of those dog trainer shows and you will find people
> having a terrible time with their pet because they try to treat the
> dog as an equal. That makes the humans feel good about the way they
> treat the dog. But unfortunately treating a dog as an equal doesn't
> get you a dog that treats you as an equal in return. It gets you a 
dog
> that acts like it has a weak leader. And that's either a stressed-
out
> dog, or one that continually challenges for dominance.

Magpie:
House Elves don't act like dogs, so I don't think anybody has to 
worry about being a weak leader around them. I don't think an Elf 
would be damaged if somebody allowed him to choose his master like a 
dog would be damaged by a poor owner. Their feelings are more like 
humans on this subject. The expectation of getting something back for 
service is a totally different issue.

Pippin: 
> Aliens with different psychology are a common theme in science
> fiction. 

Magpie:
Yes, I know. And I know that House Elves have different psychology. I 
disagree that their psychology as shown in canon erases all the 
ethical problems of the ownership of them by others.

Pippin: 
> I can understand thinking that it's just a bad example for wizards 
to
> have so much power. But to me that's a moot point. Even if the 
wizards
> all snapped their wands and went to live with the Muggles, they'd
> still have the power to maim, kill and enslave their dependents. 
They 
> wouldn't have the House-elves to kick around any more, just animals,
> children, the mentally ill, the tired, the poor, the huddled masses,
> etc, etc, etc. 

Magpie:
Yeah, the fact that they can always find someone to abuse doesn't 
make this particular situation any different imo.

  
> > Magpie:
> > But you don't literally own your spouse. This isn't a metaphor 
for 
> > elves, they're actually owned.
> 
> Pippin:
> Oh, I might, if I lived some place where spouses are chattel. (Ugh!)
> But you seem to be saying that if that were the case, I'd have a 
moral
> duty not to enjoy my spouse, even if I personally gave my spouse all
> the independence he desired, loved my spouse dearly, and even if my
> spouse considered being unmarried a disgrace and being divorced a
> worse one. 

Magpie:
No, I didn't say that would be your moral duty. I said I would 
consider it immoral for you to be owned as chattel no matter how you 
felt about it. Iow, I would disagree with you that it was right for 
you to not have any rights and I'd consider your suffering due to the 
lack of these rights (if you had any suffering) to be part of that. 
But even if you weren't suffering, I'd see your not having protection 
a problem. It has nothing to do with your enjoying your husband or 
not--if you have no rights it's good you can find some happiness. 
That's not a problem any more than it's a problem that House Elves 
enjoy their masters when they're happy with them. As I think I said 
before, I don't see why it would always coming down to telling the 
House Elves what to do. I think that was one of the mistakes Hermione 
made in GoF. All the wives deciding that they don't enjoy their 
marriage in the state it's in might help change things, but it's not 
the central moral problem.

 
> > 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:
> Right, but they *don't* want the freedom of having no master at all.
> Canon itself makes it clear that the Hogwarts Elves don't envy Dobby
> his freedom one bit,  though the books  don't show any downside to 
it. 

Magpie:
Yes--unfortunately at this point there's only two possibilities 
anybody talks about--ripping them all from their masters so that they 
all fall into despair or having them owned the way they are. I think 
there's other ways to approach the problem.

 
> Magpie:
>  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. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Agreed. But you seem to be saying that  there is something morally
> questionable about Harry being content to let Kreacher serve him 
even
> if there's nothing he can do about Kreacher's attitude or the 
problems
> of other House-elves at the moment. Like, Harry has a duty to be
> miserable, and make Kreacher miserable too, because demonstrating 
that
> in this particular instance a House-elf and and a human can manage 
to
> get along under the current circumstances means there's nothing 
wrong
> with them. 

Magpie:
As I said, it's not about the attitude of the House Elves. I find 
something morally questionable in Harry's owning another person. I 
don't think he has a duty to make Kreacher miserable, but I'm not 
satisfied with the two choices of OMG Harry will make Kreacher 
miserable if he doesn't just stick with the status quo (not that 
Harry cared about making Kreacher miserable earlier) or there's no 
problem whatsoever. I accept that the situation is complicated, that 
it's not just a case of freeing all the elves and that will make them 
happy and there's no problems. But Harry the owner of the old servant 
is always going to be a little rancid for me. Not to the point of 
ruining in the book or anything. But I thought it was bad in HBP and 
Kreacher getting to love Harry doesn't get rid of all the ick for me.

Pippin:
> Hermione argues  with the Elves in GoF until they throw her out. In
> OOP she attempts to trick them. At the same time she offers kindness
> and respect (but not understanding) to Kreacher and he betrays her. 
Is
> it self-serving that she rethinks her strategy?

Magpie:
Not at all. Her strategy was bad. For a start, she needs to 
concentrate on Wizards instead of Elves.

-m