House-Elves yet again

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181113

> > 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. 

a_svirn:
I never said it did. (And do you know of any slavery in real life 
that began with a law proclaiming slaves property?) All I said is 
that elves are put under double constraints: magical and legal. As 
opposed to magical and illegal. For instance, when Hermione kept Rita 
Skeeter in a glass jar she was doing it magically and *il*legally.

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
And as far as I know they are not bound in folklore. Which, 
considering the issue in point, is a crucial difference. 

Also the cloth thing from folklore was not for sacking unwanted 
servants but for getting rid off domestic pests. When hobs were 
making themselves nuisances (like gnomes in the WW) they were got rid 
off this way. 


> > 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.

a_svirn:
So? It wasn't established as a part of nature, was it? Wizards are 
not born wearing cloths? 

> Carol:
> 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. 


a_svirn:
You are persistently substitute *owning* with *serving*. Without 
bondage the picture you are painting (family retainers etc.) is quite 
a happy one. But we know better. We've seen elves constrained against 
their will. 

> Carol:
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? 

a_svirn:
Why indeed? So much more convenient to keep them bound. 

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
I thought for the moment you were talking of wizards. That it is a 
part of their nature to be proud elf-owners. But as I said somewhere 
upthread I can be as servile as I like, and I still I won't be you 
slave, until I am bound to you. 

> Carol:
> Forgive me for saying it yet again, but House-Elves are
> magical creatures, just like dragons and Hippogriffs and Merpeople.
> They are not human. 

a_svirn:
I readily forgive you, but it is quite unnecessary for you to remind 
me of that. I have never denied the fact. 


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

a_svirn:
When did she ever say so? She only wants to serve the Crouches. It 
doesn't bother her that she's owned so long that she can have her 
wish. But if she hated the Crouches she would be as unwilling to be 
owned as Dobby and Kreacher. 

> Carol:
> Kreacher has no objection to being owned.

a_svirn:
He does, and says so very emphatically at that: "I won't! I won't". 
And Dumbledore commented that Kreacher does not want to pass in 
Harry's ownership. 

> Carol:
> ("Kreacher lives to serve the Noble House of Black.") 

a_svirn:
Again *serve*, not *be owned*. See the question above. 

> Carol:
He only objects
> to serving the master who broke his (Kreacher's) dear mistress's
> heart.

a_svirn:
This "only" is the difference between a free elf and a slave.

> Carol:
 Being *owned* has nothing to do with it. 

a_svirn:
Only everything. 

Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
Which means that he objects to be owned. In this instance by Harry. 
Why must he comply? Because he's constrained against his will 
magically and legally. Because he's a slave. A state against which he 
rebels. 

Carol:
It has nothing to do with
> ownership and everything to do with the perceived worthiness of his
> master. 

a_svirn:
It has to do with both. But the former is more crucial than the 
latter. 

> Carol:
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.

a_svirn:
I don't understand this phrase. 

> Carol:
> "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.

a_svirn:
Honestly. His objection even made it in the chapter title. "Will and 
Wont".

> Carol:
 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.

a_svirn:
I like your *onlys* and *simplys*. Kreacher may not object to be 
owned by people whom he wants to serve, yes. But he clearly wants to 
make his own choices. Which he's quite unable to do while he is a 
bound slave. 

> a_svirn:
> Much less wanting to be owned against their will.
> 
> Carol:
> It's not a question of being owned, however.

a_svirn;
Yes, it is. They are hereditary slaves (sorry, don't know any 
euphemism for that), and as such constrained to be owned against 
their will. 


> 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:
He wants to serve. Not to be owned. See question above. 

> > 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). 

a_svirn:
That's the first time I heard that Peeves is "naturally" connected to 
the castle. I would have thought he's connected supernaturally. 

> Carol:
We're not talking about human evolution or anything
> else that's subject to a scientifc explanation.

a_svirn:
And yet, you are trying to explain away their bondage scientifically –
 as though it is some kind of an instinct. Well, you can't pass 
social intuition for an instinct.  It may be a magical world, but 
nature and culture are still clearly discernable there. 

> Carol:
 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.

a_svirn:
Except that there is no such enchantments in folklore, since they are 
not bound in folklore. 

> Carol:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
To quote Snape I see no difference. "To be a part of nature" is 
opposed "to be a part of culture". You are talking about essential 
qualities of house elves. A desire to serve can be an essential 
quality. And is, in this particular case. The established bond with 
other species cannot. Especially if it is involved cultural 
artefacts.  

> Carol:
(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.)

a_svirn:
So are humans. I can't say I see your point. Humans may be associated 
with their houses, but no one ever said that houses are a part of 
human nature. 

> 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." 

a_svirn:
Yes, they are. You are trying to rewrite canon, when you deny that 
Kreacher was opposed to passing into first Sirius's and then Harry's 
ownership. 

> Carol:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Why? Why only in this instance? If you allow wizards to impose their 
values, why not go the whole length? 

> Carol:
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:
Both Harry and Dumbledore interpret it as not wanting to be owned by 
Harry. Though of course he doesn't  want to serve him too. 

> > 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. 

a_svirn:
Yes I can. If I make the binding enchantment illegal, wizards will 
have to undo the bondage. 

> Carol:
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.

a_svirn:
Of course. But why should anyone bother to find and use the 
countercharm if things are perfectly legal and convenient (for 
wizards) as they are. 

> Carol:
> 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."

a_svirn:
But we are in the agreement that for them it is not a problem at all. 
And although you are trying to deny the evidence of canon, the 
problem is ownership. 

> 
> 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? 

a_svirn:
The difference is that one is sacking, a dismissal, while the other 
is liberation from the bondage. One is disgrace, the other is 
emphatically not. One means banishment, the other does not. A sacked 
elf is dismissed, and their prospects are gloomy indeed. A liberated 
slave is free to go or stay and their prospects are therefore much 
more cheery. 

a_svirn.