Let's talk about house elves.... (a Harry Potter discussion)?
This is a question that has bothered me since first reading about the house elves in Harry Potter, and I always mean to post a question here to get others' opinions about this and I always forget, but here I am now.
So, the house elves. JK Rowling presents a weird paradox. We have Dobby, the protagonist house elf, if you will, who wants more than just to be freed from his slavery: he wants to be paid. Hermione, being the righteous, justice-seeking soul that she is, takes this as a sign that all house elves need to be freed, but we, of course, find that none of them want to be. She tries to leave knitted socks laying around the Gryffindor common room for them to pick up and be freed with, but they all stop coming to Gryffindor Tower altogether fearing freedom, leaving Dobby to collect them all for himself. Winky, who was mistreated extremely badly by Barty Crouch Sr. was devastated to the point of living in a state of constant drunkness after being "fired" from her "job" and ending up in Hogwarts, which treats its house elves very well. So let's explore this, shall we?
1. Why does this paradox exist? Is it to say that all the Hogwarts house elves, especially Winky, have been brainwashed? Is it to say that their minds, as a non-human species, work differently from human compassion and logic? Is it to say that if they're happy, why meddle, and just help those who want to be helped? What is going on here?
2. S.P.E.W. Hermione's efforts to win and support better treatment of house elves is definitely a noble and reasonable one, to us at least, or at least to me. But, again, the house elves don't seem to want to be helped, and no one seems to want to be a part of Hermione's efforts. What is this all about? What is the thematic purpose of S.P.E.W. in the books? To show that *humans* have been brainwashed into thinking that if they seem happy, why meddle? To show that slavery is an institution that can't be broken or, at the very least, is very difficult to break? JK Rowling writes about S.P.E.W. in a very particular "everyone thinks she's crazy and she's not being effective anyway" light, and I always wonder what the purpose of it is, especially considering that equal treatment of half-breeds and non-human species (muggle borns, half-giants, giants, centaurs, goblins, etc.) is consistently being explored and supported by Dumbledore and friends throughout the books.
So. Any ideas? What are your thoughts? Opinions?
2013-07-09T15:11:03Z
David, I respectfully ask you to keep your rude nose out of questions that have zero affect on your life. Thank you. Have a lovely day.
Smiles (derailed)2013-07-09T16:02:32Z
Favorite Answer
I can't remember the last time I answered a question on Harry Potter, let alone in Books and Authors.
1. Why the paradox exists.
I'm sure you'll disagree with me, but I don't think there's a paradox to begin with. It's simply a scenario which presents the mindset of a non-human species and contrasts it with that of a human, aka Hermoine.
– So if I replace 'paradox' with 'scenario' or 'situation' which, I think, is more apt, I think Rowling introduced it to pose a question (that you've already mentioned)– should help be given to those who think they don't need it? Obviously, the answer to this question depends on the context. In the context of the house-elves, personally, I felt that they deserved to be treated better and given a salary and the freedom to leave the family they served if they wished to. I didn't want to throw clothes on them and tell them they were free. What if they didn't want to leave? I believed they should be given a choice, nothing more and nothing less.
– If Rowling didn't introduce it for that purpose, it could have been simply to parallel the social inequalities like racism or casteism that existed in the Muggle world. (She could have introduced the Mudblood/half-giant/half-breed concept for the same purpose.)
2. The S.P.E.W. issue.
This answer is sort of a continuation of the previous one.
– I think the introduction of S.P.E.W. gives us a lot of insight into the general wizarding world, the way the majority thinks. It introduces the flaws of a society, it's layers and colors and the way some norms are unquestioningly accepted. – This is a bit obvious, but it shows us how the best of people can have flawed notions. Even Even Ron, one of the main protagonists who safely belonged in Team Good, was against S.P.E.W. And this is a really good contrast between his wizarding upbringing and Hermoine's Muggle one. (Harry, Ron and Hermione have all had very different childhoods and their childhood defines all of their characters a lot, if you think about it). – Everyone thought Hermione was crazy for thinking of something like S.P.E.W. Just like all the elves thought Dobby was crazy for wanting a salary and wearing clothes. Why? Because it had never been thought of before. This thematically portrays a "Conformity vs Induviduality" scenario of a single person fighting the norms of society instead of going along with them. ......................................
To generally answer both the questions, both the scenarios you mention simply add dimension to the story of Harry Potter which is extremely important for a book to be good. It shows us more about what this world really is. It's not just Harry that makes the series. It's about the races, the prejudices, the laws, the legends, the wars, the corruption, the history and the revolutions of the society – all of which have been thoroughly explored– that shape the series. A book needs to be more than a main guy and his sidekicks and then a few subplots thrown in just to show that it's not all about the main guy.
I think that's what makes this series so special. It's all so multi faceted. There is such a realism and profoundess to this universe that every chapter, every character, every subplot comes with a message of it's own, whether we realize it or not.
Happy tear.
Star :D
Edit: That Additional Detail would have fit right in with the Marauders' messages for Snape. Just saying :p
I believe that the average person in the book must view the house elves as something more like a dog than human. This idea is similar to that of the mudblood vs pureblood and that wizards have the right to rule and I think that is where this idea fits in thematically.
I'd consider SPEW a political initiative. The only way for political change to happen is for cultural change to happen. Unless people view the enslavement of intelligent non humans as something worse than putting a dog in a crate then change won't happen. The issue with the house elves not wanting to be freed also makes it a difficult cause to change peoples mind on. That would explain why Hermione had difficultly persuading students.
Political change is slow so I think Dumbledore had the long term view of pushing for equal treatment of half breeds and other intelligent species which would be an easier cause than that of house elves freedom.
1. I think that House Elves are, for the lack of better word, built to work and serve people. It's who they are, it's in their nature. Of course, there's always going to be exceptions, and Dobby is one of them. He wants to be paid, to have a bit of freedom, but even he still won't take many weekends off and doesn't want more than a galleon or two a week. The way they act towards exceptions like Dobby (and Winkey too, even though she doesn't want freedom and is just upset that she isn't working for Mr. Crouch Sr. anymore) is like an unchanging, traditional, group. When someone steps out of the norm of the group, everybody else is going to look at you strangely. You aren't like them; you're the outcast. The paradox isn't really a paradox, it's just because of Dobby that it seems to be a paradox.
2. I feel that the main reason why Hermione made S.P.E.W. was because she could relate to the House Elves treatment. Hermione is a Muggleborn, and, especially in the time period she was in (Voldemort and Death Eaters), Muggleborns were discriminated, often thought of as lower than a Pureblood. She's determined to make everybody equal, which is obvious throughout the series and in her later life (she works in the Ministry in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and continuing her work to help the rights of non-humans). It's how Hermione is, she's always been a caring person and believes in equality. I think that's the point of S.P.E.W.
1) Why does this paradox exist? Is it that their minds work differently from human compassion and logic?
** No. On the contrary, their behavior exactly portrays the human condition. People are afraid of change, they find stability and comfort in routine. When they're suddenly thrust into unfamiliar situations, they try to cling to the past rather than embrace and adapt. Now take the situation of a life time of slavery. These elves are conditioned to believe it's normal and acceptable, even necessary. It's no different from women in India accepting their down-trodden lot in life as marital beasts of burdens and child factories for their "superior" husbands, or Americans who are conditioned to believe that every human is born with a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, these elves are conditioned to believe their purpose on Earth is to serve. Stephen King addresses this very same theme in "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" where the old veteran convict,Brooks Hatlin, who was incarcerated most of his life, finally gets parole but kills himself because he became "institutionalized." His purpose, his human value ceased to exist outside the prison walls. In the real world, he was no one and nothing. This is a similar instance.
2) What's the thematic purpose of SPEW in the books?
** To illuminate and contrast against the theme of oppression and acceptance. It sheds light on how accustomed people can become to injustices. It shows people's level of tolerance for this. It also suggests that passions, though well-intended, might be mislaid (unappreciated/unaccepted by the culture). It's similar to colonial Americans assigning a place in society for Native Americans. If they overstepped their boundaries then they were causing discord. Those who advocated equal rights were stigmatized as "Injun-lovers"... you see it today with "tree-huggers," and Gay rights advocates. Anything that disrupts the general equilibrium is shunned, no matter how ethically right it may be. Rowling was making a point about very ugly truths of our society.
You call it an institution. That's exactly right. But she's also playing on the common fantasy trope of racism that you find in almost every epic, sword-n-sorcery, and high fantasy these days.