House-Elves yet again

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181047

> Carol: 
> 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).
> 
> a_svirn:
> Oh, I don't know. I think Kreacher rather liked his assignment. He 
> certainly was eager to participate in the interrogation. 

Carol:
True. I'm sure he loved that assignment, as I said in another post.
After all, he held Mundungus in the greatest contempt ("Smells like a
drain and a thief to boot," or something like that). And without
question, he enjoyed hitting Mundungus on the head with a saucepan
(not actually part of his assignment, but helping Master Harry deal
with the scum who dared to steal the Black family's treasures). But
what I meant was that Elves in general, seem (not surprisingly, given
their name) to prefer housework (cooking, cleaning) to other kinds of
work. We never see them doing the equivalent of manual labor,
magically digging ditches or picking crops, for example. They are
HOUSE ELVES, and their place seems to be, pardon the phrase, in the
home (counting Hogwarts as a home away from home for hundreds of
students and some twenty or so staff members). Notice that Kreacher,
after cleaning himself up, immediately starts cooking and cleaning.
That seems to be what House-Elves do most naturally and enjoy doing,
not for themselves but for Wizards.
> 
> Carol: 
> 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through
clothes, not legislation.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. 

Carol:
Um, sorry. I don't know what you mean. House-Elves are recognized as
property (Kreacher can be inherited along with the house) but that
seems to be merely recognizing the (natural or at least pre-existing)
state of affairs. There's no law on the books that we know of stating
that all House-Elves will be slaves or even that all House-Elves must
belong to a Wizard. Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started
serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they
became magically associated with those old families and houses, so
that they were to all intents and purposes part of the house. The only
way to get rid of them was to give them clothes. (Of course, they
could be ordered to accompany a family member or go elsewhere, for
example, to Hogwarts, but that doesn't make them any less associated
with the family home. I'm sure that Kreacher sees 12 GP as his home;
Hogwarts is only, in HBP, the place he's been ordered to stay by
Harry, who is also there, and in DH, a refuge from the DEs who invaded
12 GP. Yaxley evidently saw it when he grabbed Hermione to follow her.
So Kreacher escaped to a place he'd been previously ordered to go to
await further orders. Or that's how I read it.)

Anyway, I've strayed as usual from my point, which is that the law
recognizes House-Elves as property, but I doubt that they became
property ("slaves," to use your word) through legislation. There's
some sort of enchantment that can only be undone by giving a House-Elf
clothes, and it seems to be part of the nature of House-Elves. (This
is fantasy/folklore we're dealing with, and we can't expect a logical,
rational, legalistic explanation for the existence of House-Elfs or
their apparently natural and inevitable desire to serve Wizards.

> Carol earlier: 
> 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."
> 
> a_svirn:
> And what exactly it tells us? That Dobby and Winky are natural  slaves? 

Carol:
Did I say that?
What I'm saying, dear a_svirn, is that "freedom" for House-Elves, at
least in the unenlightened WW we see in the books, is not a desirable
state. They can't just start up a business like Wizards. They have to
look for domestic work *for* Wizards because that is what House-Elves
do and all that they do and what they want to do. They have no
alternative except to remain homeless wanderers and perhaps starve.

I am saying that they naturally *serve* Wizards, but not that they are
natural slaves. That's your word, remember? I almost feel that you're
perversely misunderstanding my argument and twisting my words.

a_svirn:
I'd say it tells us that the wizarding society and culture leaves much
to be desired. The example of Winky and Dobby shows that naturally,
organically <snip> their faculties, magical abilities and even their
desire to serve are all intact. What they need is some goodwill of
wizards. 

Carol:
A point with which I agree completely (except that Winky's faculties
are somewhat impaired by butterbeer and grief later on). I have, in
fact, been arguing that House-Elves need to understand House-Elf
psychology and treat them as they want to be treated for this entire
thread. I snipped the part about being "free" because "freedom" for
House-elves amounts to being unemployed and (virtually) unemployable
in the current state of the WW.

a_svirn:
And the only wizard that has the required quality is Dumbledore. Well
it's just too bad, isn't it? Not all is well in the WW after all,
something is definitely rotten. 

Carol:
And yet if their masters had treated them fairly and not imposed
"freedom" in the one case and abuse in the other, they would not have
been in that position. *If* House-Elf servitude is "natural" in the
sense of having been established by some enchantment that can only be
undone by giving them clothes--not through making it illegal, which,
IMO, would be pointless and futile--then the answer lies in making
sure that their masters treat them well. And legislation *could*
accomplish that, just as parents can be compelled to stop abusing
their children. (The MoM would probably have some means of magically
detecting Elf abuse.) But "freeing" all the House-Elves by giving them
clothes (the only way it can be done, per canon) would result in a lot
of miserable House-Elves. Just ask Winky, who didn't want to be
"freed," or the Hogwarts House-Elves, who rightly rejected Hermione's
high-handed attempts to free them.
> 
Carol eralier:
> 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.
> 
> a_svirn: 
> Yes indeed, it seemed to discompose Hermione. Elves themselves, 
however, are not fussed about it. They want to serve the masters of 
their choice – and that's the really big issue with them – but as for
self-punishment, they don't complain about it. Well, Dobby mentioned 
it, but only as a minor issue. Kreacher certainly saw nothing
whatsoever wrong with it. 
> 
>Carol:
A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps and
bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as
horrific, you consider minor. What you call "slavery" and therefore
evil, I consider to be the natural state of affairs in the
WW--House-Elves serving Wizards--with a few complications, such as
abuse of the system by the Malfoys et al.--easily resolved by what
used to be called a raised consciousness. 

As for the Elves being "fussed" about serving the masters of their
choice, they still want to serve, and are not at all "fussed" about
being owned. What they want is to be treated well: not abused, like
Dobby, not "freed, like Winky, and not scorned and insulted, like
Kreacher. I'm not going to go around and around with those arguments
again, but show me one single Elf other than Dobby who says that he
wants to be "free."

> Carol:
> 9) SPEW is unworkable because neither Elves nor Wizards want
anything to do with it.
> 
> a_svirn:
> SPEW is unworkable because it irresponsible and dishonest. And that
 very good word that Mike used – self-congratulatory. Or, if we take 
Hermione's tender age into account, immature, sneaky and self-
congratulatory. We haven't seen real mature and responsible attempt to
do something for elves in canon. 

Carol:
Well, at least we agree that SPEW is aptly named and that Hermione was
taking matters into her own hands (a Hermionish trait) without
consulting the Elves). As for a mature and responsible attempt to do
something for Elves in canon, I suspect that the mature Hermione of
the epilogue (who now understands the psychology of House-Elves and
has the sense to concentrate on the self-abuse instead of trying to
impose unwanted "freedom" on the House-Elves) will take care of that.
There are several hints to that effect in canon: her speech to Harry
in "Kreacher's Tale," her words to Scrimgeour about wanting to do some
good in the world, and her words to Griphook expressing concern for
all the oppressed groups, including House-Elves (and the poor ickle
goblins, but you and I probably don't agree about them, either.)
> 
> Carol:
> 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,) 
> <snip>
> 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.)
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't understand why you think that one of these two separate 
> enchantments can be lifted while the other cannot. <snip>

Carol:
Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again:
Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic with
a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you can't
undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse.

Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the
enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only the
counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring
all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result in
great psychological harm to the Elves, and in homelessness and
joblessness if they were forced to seek new owners. You said yourself
that the WW is no fit place for unemployed House-Elves. Legislation to
compel them to treat their Elves compassionately would be a much
better solurion.

The other enchantment, the one forcing House-Elves to punish
themselves, must also have a countercurse or countercharm of some
sort. We just don't know what it is. It can't be undone by giving
clothes, as we see with Dobby, nor can it be undone by legislation. I
trust Hermione to research the matter and see if she can find its
origins and perhaps develop a countercurse (whether it would have to
be administered individually or could be done en masse, I have no
idea). If it can't be undone, then the humane masters law, combined
with mandatory House-Elf Studies classes at Hogwarts to make students
aware of the problem, will have to do.

At any rate, we have canon to show that individual House-Elves can be
"freed" through clothes, the only countercharm available. We don't
know what the other countercharm is, or whether there is one. The
solution to the self-punishment problem depends on what caused the
problem, if you understand me.

> a_svirn:
> I am continually puzzled by that persistent reference to businessmen 
> and professors. Are these two categories of people the only ones who 
> have freedom of choice? 

Carol:
Of course not. I am simply citing two typical Wizarding career
choices, others being MoM employees and Healers at St. Mungos, in
which it appears that House-Elves, not being human, have no interest
(and for which, possibly, they're not suited by nature). I am talking
about choices that Wizards make that House-Elves either cannot or
simply do not make. Make sense now?

a_svirn:
And why the quotation mark? Are you signaling unusual usage? 

Carol:
Yes, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of choice" is not normally used to
mean a choice of masters or even a choice of professions. If you look
up the phrase on Google, I suspect it will lead you to websites
supporting a woman's right to abortion.

Carol, who is much more interested in examining the WW as it is
depicted than in imposing her personal views of how it ought to be onto it