House-Elves yet again

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181092

Carol earlier:
> > 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Very probably they first become the property of wizards de facto,
and then the situation was legitimised. It has been in fact the case
with many a law. I don't see how it makes the situation any more 
palatable. 

Carol again:
Nevertheless, House-Elf servitude or ownership or whatever it is did
not begin with a law declaring all House-Elves to be "slaves" or
property. It began with an enchantment. Whether that enchantment is
part of House-Elf nature or was imposed on them by Wizards, we don't
know. All *I* know is that in folklore, elves voluntarily serve humans
until they are given clothes. I suspect that JKR altered that bit of
folklore for her own purposes, retaining the House-Elves' desire to
serve humans and the giving of clothes. We can't know how the
House-Elves changed from being voluntary servants to Wizards to being
owned by them. Maybe the Wizards simply realized that the House-Elves
would stay with them and their families, becoming hereditary family
retainers who worked without pay (happily and efficiently if they were
treated well) until they were given clothes. And maybe some of them
started to use clothes (as Mr. Crouch did) as a threat to hold over
the House-Elves' heads if they didn't do a good job--as some human
employers hold the threat of being fired over the heads of their
employees. "Freedom" (whatever that means) and the clothes that
magically sent House-Elves on their way, no longer able to serve that
family (as we see with Winky) became associated with disgrace.
Clearly, serving a particular family is a tradition in the eyes of
House-Elves like Winky and Kreacher. (Not Dobby, but Dobby is horribly
abused and is in other ways an anamoly. "Yeh get oddballs in every
family" or whatever Hagrid says about him.)
> 
Carol earlier:
> 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> No, this particular enchantment does not seem to be a part of their
nature to me. It involves cultural artefacts. <snip> It is obviously
an enchantment that was put on elves by wizards. 

Carol again:
Not obviously, or we would agree, right? I'm not sure when or how
House-Elves as a species originated, but when we see elves in
folklore, the giving of clothes is already the means of ending their
association with a particular set of humans. Clothes may be a cultural
artifact (I'm using the American spelling)--not necessarily a
Wizarding artifact, but a human one--but maybe House-Elves originated
at a time when human culture, including clothes, was well-established.
We need not assume that some Wizard somehow enchanted all House-Elves
to work for Wizards and be freed by clothes. I think that the desire
to work for humans (specifically Wizards in JKR's version of the
story) is part of their nature. As for the enchantment that "frees"
them when they're given clothes, why would any Wizard want to do that
to his own Elf or any other? that must be part of their nature, too,
just like the nature of Hippogriffs is to be proud, and the way to
tame them is to look them in the eye and bow to them. Or the nature of
Unicorns is to fear boys and men but submit to girls ("virgins" in
folklore). Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are
magical creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople.
They are not human. They have different needs and natures, and the
magic that binds them is by no means necessarily an enchantment placed
on them by Wizards any more than a Wizard enchanted Thestrals to be
invisible to anyone who has not seen death. <snip>

> a_svirn:
> I quite agree with you that they naturally want to serve.

Carol again:
Good. And apparently serving Wizards is *all* they want to do. Are we
agreed on that point as well? (If so, I can drop my argument about
their not wanting to go into business or a profession such as teaching
or Healing as a given. Also banking, which seems to be the province of
Goblins.) I would add that they prefer *house*work, being House-Elves,
but perhaps that's a given as well.

a_svirn:
> What I don't understand is how it is translated into wanting to be
owned. 

Carol responds:
Winky wants to be owned. She wants to return to the master who "freed"
her against her will. Kreacher has no objection to being owned.
("Kreacher lives to serve the Noble House of Black.") He only objects
to serving the master who broke his (Kreacher's) dear mistress's
heart. Being *owned* has nothing to do with it. He *wants* to remain
with and serve the representatives of the Black family (whether it's
his dead mistress's portrait or Miss Narcissa or Miss Bellatrix) whom
he considers worthy of the honor. Sure, he objects to being inherited
by Harry, but that's because he doesn't want to be transferred to the
service of someone who is not a Black. It has nothing to do with
ownership and everything to do with the perceived worthiness of his
master. As we see, once he perceives Harry as worthy of his respect,
he has no problem serving him (or bieng owned by him). Essentially,
House-Elf ownership is a given like the desire to serve Wizards.
"Freedom" is not only a disgrace but a dangerous state of affairs in
the current state of the WW, as we agree. Not once does Kreacher state
a desire to be free. Not once does he object to being owned. He simply
does not want to be owned by *HBP!Harry.* It's perfectly okay with him
to be owned by DH!Harry, just as it was perfectly okay with him to be
owned, as his ancestors were, by the Black family. His hero is Regulus
Black, champion of House-Elves, who did not try to "free" him but
instead died to avenge the cruel treatment of a House-Elf. Clearly,
it's abuse (making Kreacher drink that horrible potion with the
assumption that he'd be killed by Inferi) that Regulus was objecting
to, and his opposition to that abuse, as well as his self-sacrifice,
leads Kreacher to honor him. He does *not* regard Hermione, who wants
to free the House-Elves, as the champion of House-Elves. (Her
understanding of his thought process does, however, earn her a nod of
grudging respect.)

a_svirn:
Much less wanting to be owned against their will.

Carol:
It's not a question of being owned, however. It's a question of not
wanting to serve an unworthy master. They're perfectly happy being
owned by a master they respect, and extremely unhappy when a master
they love in effect *disowns* them by giving them clothes (Winky). It
seems to me rather like disowning a child, which would only be
perceived as good by a child who wanted to be disowned. 

a_svirn:
 I've been asking this very question many a time and yet to receive an
answer. I almost feel that you purposefully ignore it. <snip>

Carol:
On the contrary, I have answered it about five times as fully and
honestly as I can. Evidently, my answer doesn't satisfy you, whereas
from my perspective, it makes perfect sense. I certainly am not
ignoring it or I would not be participating in this thread.

I'll say it again. Dobby is the *only* House-Elf in canon who objects
to being owned. Kreacher superficially resembles him in not wanting to
serve a particular master (or two), but that has nothing to do with
percieving himself as a slave or not wanting to be owned. He *wants*
to serve a human master, but only one that he considers to be a worthy
representive of the Noble House of Black, to which, in his view, he
belongs. 

> a_svirn:
> For the life of me I cannot understand how all this can mean
"natural" (and yes, I do signal unusual usage). <snip>

Carol:
See upthread. We are talking about magical creatures with mysterious
origins. And you've said yourself that the desire to serve Wizards is
part of their nature and therefore natural. The enchantment that
"frees" them (or severs their connection with the Wizard family
they've been serving) also appears to be part of their nature (as
Peeves the Poltergeist is "naturally" connected with a castle built by
Wizard magic). We're not talking about human evolution or anything
else that's subject to a scientifc explanation. We're talking about
magical creatures with a mysterious magical origin that involves a
mysterious enchantment which may or may not have been placed on them
by Wizards. You think that it "must" have been placed on them by
Wizards because clothes are cultural artifacts. I think that they came
into being at a time when houses (they're *House*-Elves, right?) and
clothing were already an established part of Wizard culture, and that
enchantment was already part of their nature from the beginning, just
as it is in folklore.

I think you're using "natural" to mean the opposite of artificial or
cultural (babies aren't born wearing clothes). I understand that
point. But I'm using "natural" to mean "part of their nature"--that
is, the enchantment involving clothes came into being when House-Elves
came into being and is part of their nature, just as the desire to
serve Wizards and perform domestic chores in a house is part of their
nature. (Houses are also cultural artifacts that don't exist in nature
as you're using the term, but House-Elves are obviously associated
with them.)

IOW, you're looking (I think) at nature meaning plants, animals,
rocks, trees, earth, and sky. I'm looking at nature meaning the nature
of House-Elves, the psychology and powers and enchantments that belong
to them as a species.

Carol earlier:
> > 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I see it as horrific too. You, however, were the one, who argued in
favour of listening to what is important to elves and against 
imposing our human values on them. They are not particularly unhappy
about self-punishment. They are unhappy about being bound against
their will. Let's listen to elves, shall we? <snip>

Carol:
The thing is, they're *not* unhappy about being "bound against theri
will." They're unhappy being abused (Dobby) or serving "unworthy"
masters. they don't want to be "freed," which is what I mean when I
say that we should listen to House-Elves. And when Harry, via
Hermione, finally listens to House-Elves, he gets a newly clean and
devoted Kreacher.

That they are not concerned (unlike Hermione) with the self-punishment
enchantment does not make it less horrific. And I'm afraid that, in
that instance, Wizards *must* step in. If they can't break the
enchantment, then they'll have to make sure that they don't give the
House-Elves an order that the House-Elves can't carry out. (As for
"won't" carry out, as in Kreacher's not want to serve Harry, if
they're serving masters they respect, that won't be a problem.)

Carol earlier:
> > 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.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, but if Harry knows that he faces Azkaban if he uses it he'll 
> think twice before do something like that. 

Carol responds:
By all means make Sectumsempra and House-Elf abuse illegal. But you
cn't undo House-Elf *ownership* through legislation. The only way to
do that is by giving clothes to all the House-Elves, or passing a law
ordering all Wizards who own House-Elves to free them under penalty of
a year or two in Azkaban, which would make a lot of Wizards and
House-Elves extremely unhappy. The "cure" would be worse than the disease.

All I'm saying is that a law cannot undo an enchantment. Only magic,
specifically a countercurse or countercharm, can undo an enchantment.
And, in this case, perhaps undoing the enchantment is not the solution
to the problem, especially if the problem is House-Elf abuse
(including self-punishment) as opposed to "slavery."

Carol earlier: 
> > 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, 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Of course, it would. Giving cloths is not a counterenchantment, it
is the way of sacking the elf. The enchantment must be lifted altogether. 

Carol responds:
How would lifting the enchantment altogether (assuming that's
possible) be any different from giving the House-Elves clothes, which
*is* a counterenchantment in that it lifts the enchantment for an
individual House-Elf? Either way, they'd all be forced into unwanted
"freedom." Sacked, in other words. Not free to work for their beloved
masters if they so chose. We're not talking about the Emancipation
Proclamation. We're talking about magic, a specific enchantment for
which a specific counterenchantment does exist, and which would be
disastrous if universally enforced. (The self-punishment enchantment
is another matter. Neither Hermione nor Dumbledore appears to know of
a counter-enchantment, which might or might not have to be performed
on individual Elves if it were invented or discovered.)

Carol earlier: 
> 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.
> 
> a_svirn:
> No it wouldn't. For one thing it is impossible to implement, since 
bound elves cannot inform on their masters, for another a free person
is a better solution than a person owned. Better for both parties. <snip>

Carol:
It would not be impossible to implement. All that's required is for
the MoM to have some form of spell detection similar to what's used to
detect magic performed on Muggles. (see Bob Ogden's visit to the Gaunt
family in HBP.) As for "freedom" being better than ownership by
compassionate masters whom the Elves respect, I doubt that the Elves
would agree with you. Nor do I.
 
> > 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
> >
> a_svirn:
> Well, there is no problem with women rights in the WW that I know
of. There is, however a problem with elvish rights, so I really don't
 understand what it is so unusual in my usage of the phrase. 

Carol:
Sorry to be unclear. I wasn't criticizing your use of the phrase
(except that "freedom of choice" is not as self-explanatory as some
posters seem to think, having other associations in common usage).

What I meant by my sig line is that I, personally, prefer to analyze
what's in the books and how the WW works as opposed to imposing my
view of what the WW ought to be like onto them. That's why I prefer
textual analysis to feminism, Marxism, or any other -ism that looks at
a literary work through the lens of the critics' political (or
religious) preferences.

As Alla said with regard to "abuse," the WW is a different world from
the RL with different notions of right and wrong from ours. Alla
didn't specify postmodern Western society, but I'll add that as my own
thought. I'm not sure whether the mindset of most Wizards is that of
Edwardian England or 1692, the year of the Statute of Secrecy, but
their teaching tactics, their education, their values are different
from ours. And, unlike ours, their world contains magic and magical
creatures, which makes their world, from Quidditch to Potions to COMC
to House-Elves, very different from ours.

I'm much more interested in examining how that world works than in
trying to make it conform to my values. And, for the record, I don't
believe in owning slaves or in abusing any living creature. I just
don't see House-Elves as analogous to human slaves and I see it as a
mistake to pass judgment on Wizards for owning them when House-Elves
are as much a part of their world as Poltergeists. By all means, end
House-Elf abuse if possible. But I can't see ending House-Elf
*ownership* as either possible or desirable.

Just my take on this imaginary world, in which Snape can fly and
werewolves can teach at a boarding school and giants can somehow be
transported across the English Channel without anyone noticing.

Carol, now wondering irrelevantly how Hagrid got Grawp from the
mountains of Europe to Hogwarts