House-Elves yet again

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181031

We're getting nowhere in the House-Elves are/are not slaves debate,
and those of us who feel that the House-Elf ownership is sufficiently
different from human slavery to justify the use of that loaded term
(All in favor of slavery, say "Aye!") are also getting nowhere. Call
it a draw as neither side seems likely to persuade the other to give
an inch.

Let me start from scratch. Here are the points that seem to me
indisputable, and I'm not going to support them with canon yet again
as they've all been covered in the previous discussion.

1) House-Elves are not human, either physically or psychologically.

2) House-Elves, even those who have been "freed," willingly (Dobby) or
unwillingly (Winky), want to serve Wizards.

3) Unlike humans, House-Elves are willing to work without pay or
benefits (with the partial exception of Dobby, who talks Dumbledore
into *lower* wages and *fewer days off, the opposite of what most
humans would do). We have no indication that House-Elves want to work
for nonhuman masters or employers or for themselves (which is why,
Magpie, I talked about their not wanting to open a business as we see
Wizards doing). All they want to do, so far as I can see, is to work
for Wizards.

4) While House-Elves can do other tasks, such as fetching Mundungus
Fletcher, they not surprisingly prefer housework and are exceptionally
good at it. (My guess is that their magic is specially adapted to the
Elf equivalent of "householdy spells" and to enabling them to keep out
of sight ("the mark of a good House-Elf is that he's not seen," as
somebody says).

5) House-Elves seem to belong to old pureblood families or ancient
institutions like Hogwarts, indicating that they have been part of the
WW for a long time. (Needless to say, we don't see them in the homes
of Muggle-borns. Whether any Half-Bloods own a House-Elf, I can't say.)

6) Not all House-Elves are abused by their masters, and even abuse is
not sufficient reason in the minds of most House-Elves (Dobby is the
lone exception) to desire "freedom."

7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through clothes,
not legislation. One Elf is unwillingly "freed" and, like the majority
of House-Elves, if the Hogwarts Elves are any indication, regards
"freedom" (and the clothes that go with it) as a disgrace. A second
Elf is accidentally freed (through a trick of Harry's) and is
ecstatic. He regards, too, regards clothes as a symbol of "freedom"
but, unlike Winky, he wears them proudly. Nevertheless, his "freedom"
is not all that wonderful, as it amounts to homelessness and
unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for Dumbledore, both he and
Winky would have remained outcasts (or starved to death). No one wants
a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who "wants paying."

8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular family
can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the enchantment
that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys his master
(or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and Umbridge, remains
in place). They are, it seems, two separate enchantments, and it's the
second, the self-punishment enchantment, that seems more horrific to
Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf cause.

9) SPEW is unworkable because neither Elves nor Wizards want anything
to do with it. The Hogwarts House-Elves have made it clear through he
equivalent of a sit-down strike that they do *not* want to be "freed,"
nor do they want human do-gooders "nosing" (to use Winky's word) in
their business. 

10) An unhappy House-Elf can work against his master in surprisingly
effective ways, either making his life miserable (Kreacher) or aiding
his enemies (Kreacher and Dobby) or both. (I'm not counting the
"freed" Elf, Winky, who was wholly useless in her new, presumably
paid, job, and would have been "sacked" by any human employer for her
conduct.)

11) A happy House-Elf (one who is well-treated and has a master he
respects) performs well and efficiently, wanting no other reward than
an occasional compliment ("Good service!"). They can, apparently, keep
their own tea towels clean and undoubtedly eat some of the food they
prepare for their masters. An unhappy House-Elf (Dobby in his grungy
pillowcase and Kreacher in his filthy loincloth) either can't or won't
keep himself clean. (Winky is another case in point, with her burned
skirt and soiled blouse). It seems to me that Pippin is right: having
a House-elf is only beneficial to the House-elf owner when it's
mutually beneficial. Treat your House-Elf well and he'll be happy,
giving you good service, which will make *you* happy. Treat him badly,
and your house will be dirty because the Elf will find a way to
subvert you (Kreacher's idea of "cleaning" and Sirius's "little joke"
about the House of Black getting "blacker" every day).

So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one on
this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with
penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I
think it is,) Or must we return to SPEW, and "free" the Elves against
their will? (I think we've been shown that that's a bad idea.)

I know that some people think that the House-Elves are supposed to
have "freedom of choice" to find a new master (they're not, let's face
it, going to open a business or become professors). But where are they
supposed to find these new masters? An employment agency run by the
MoM? And what's the guarantee that they'd find a suitable employer?

More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the only
way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo an
enchantment.) The mass of Elves live lives of quiet service to
Wizards, and they've made it clear that they don't want clothes, thank
you. Surely, that wish ought to be respected.

Carol, who is all for ending House-Elf abuse but not for forcing
unwanted "freedom" on them