What Does Harry Potter Mean Now? [37:55-42:57]

Nevertheless, as Lowry argues, it may actually be more useful to analyse house elves as their own unique case study of social inequality. So why do the house elves resist Hermione's attempts to liberate them? Drawing a real-life slavery parallel might explain this as a result of their own internalised repression. What Barrett identifies as false consciousness. That's Hermione's explanation, too. She described the elves as uneducated and brainwashed. On the other hand, if we take the text at its word that servitude genuinely is the natural state of house elves, Hermione's activism begins to look more insensitive while she initially acts more like a union boss, campaigning for fair wages and working conditions. Lowry argues the reason she ultimately fails is because her approach becomes a simulationist. She leaves clothes around the Gryffindor common room in the hopes house elves will unwittingly free themselves while cleaning. In other words, forcing them to change against their wishes. Hermione has ceased to recognise elves as disenfranchised unfairly treated members of the service industry and has instead begun to see them as an ignorant racial group in either a fundamental change to their ways of thinking and relating to the world. However, even Lowry describes her interpretation as a negotiated reading. As per Stuart Hall's reception theory, a negotiated reading accepts some aspects of the author's intent while rejecting others. For instance, what about Dobby? If the narrative wants us to believe servitude is an inherent part of house elf culture and this arrangement is fine, actually, how come the most prominent elf character we meet is the one exception? If Joanne was trying to make a point about respecting foreign cultures, Dobby undermines it. An elf who wants to be free throws their natural subservience into question. And whether house elves genuinely want to be enslaved or not, the text makes clear they're mistreated by wizards either way. Not just because Dobby was abused by the mouthways, but also because all magical creatures are victims of discrimination. They're not allowed once, they have no representation in government. And the ministry's fountain of magical brethren represents wizards' perception of themselves at the top of the hierarchy, which the narrative very clearly frames as an error on their part. The fountain we destroyed tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for far too long, and we are now reaping our reward. So even within the context of the narrative, house elves are victims of systemic injustice. Even if Hermione's activism is meant to be read as misguided, the text still frames her as basically correct in identifying the injustice. And Hermione kept telling us to be nice to creature. She was quite right, Harry, said Dumbledore. And how does Joanne resolve this injustice? Basically, she doesn't. I mean, she tries, kind of. The victory scene in the Great Hall also describes humans and non-humans sitting together as equals. And yet, only a few pages later, the last ever mention of a house elf in the entire series, effectively the conclusion of their story, is Harry wondering whether creature might bring him a sandwich. Creature was abused by his former masters. He fought alongside Harry in the battle, yet it still assumed his welfare comes second to Harry's. The hierarchy is left unchanged. A liberal gesture is generally understood as implying that all races are essentially equal. But where such a gesture seems to be located in the Harry Potter books, only magical races that are unequal are presented. It's difficult to draw a solid conclusion on house elves, since the text itself doesn't draw much of a conclusion. Joanne is often criticised for poor world building, which I don't always think is fair, but what I will criticise is how surprisingly incurious she seems to be about the implications of the world she invents. Where do house elves come from? Who decides which families they serve? Why are they bound by a magical contract? Why do they have humans at the ministry in charge of their interests? The text not only leaves these questions unanswered, but also unasked. Despite all these academics attempting to tease out Joanne's meaning, could it just be that she didn't think any of this through? The most charitable reading of this conclusion, as Harry describes, is that not all problems can be fixed in one day. We got a defeat Voldemort first, so we can liberate house elves later. And in interviews, Joanne seems to support that view,