Why didn't Malfoy forbid Dobby to pursuit his freedom?

[Susana da Cunha]

No: HPFGUIDX 115711

This question came to me in a very nice off list discussion about ways to change society where Dungrollin, very cleverly, pointed out that a wizard might be allowed to forbid his elf to ask for freedom.

I guess I always assumed elves *can* disobey a direct order. I know there's almost irrefutable canon against it - DD says to Harry Kretcher couldn't disobey a direct order because of the magical bindings of his kind. But, in a way, he did (I'm sure he had direct orders not to leave the house, and I'm sure he knew Sirius wasn't ordering him out of the house). It's like... like Peeves said to Flitch: "I will tell you nothing unless you say please" (PS/SS). If they had made a magical contract on it, Peeves would get away with saying "nothing" after Flitch said "please". 

Kretcher 'worked against his master', as Dobby did. I don't think their magical binding stops them from 'working against their master'; it stops them from disobeying direct orders. But like the "nothing if you say please" thing, the only way to assure an elf's dedication and obedience is to make sure the elf is *willing* to obey.

As I argued in my first post on this subject, Winky would not speak ill of her family even after she was freed because she was still *willing* to serve them. Dobby, on the other hand, was willing to speak ill of his family even when he was in their service (he almost spoke ill of his family in Privet Drive). In the Hogwarts kitchen, he says he *can* speak ill of the Malfoys and he does. I read the punishment as he thinking that he *shouldn't* - it's not morally correct / makes him a 'bad elf' / not socially accepted - a cultural thing. 

Taking this a step further, Kretcher spoke ill of his master right in front of him several times. I don't think the magic stops them from having a will of their own. I assume (hope to be proven right or wrong in the next books) most of the self punishment we see is cultural; not magical. A bit like Christian self flagellation: the individual believes doing it turns him into a better person/elf. And we know elves take their conduct very seriously - Dobby ironed his hands as punishment for closing the barrier at Kings Cross. That couldn't be a magically inflicted punishment because Harry is not his master (someone argued that he was doing it because he was acting against Malfoys interests, but I think that doesn't fit his words).

So what about disobeying a 'don't ask for freedom' order? Well, I was always curious about something Dobby said: the Malfoys were very careful not to give Dobby even a sock (CoS). Since a sock or hat fallen on the ground counts, I suppose they didn't let Dobby near a wardrobe. If they let him clean the rooms, the wardrobes had to be locked with keys and not even a sock lying around. Can you imagine what would be like to be *that careful* in your daily routine? 

But what was Dobby doing with an iron if he's not aloud to attend to the clothes? I suppose your own clothes don't count. To *give* clothes to an elf you have to *dispose* of them. So the Malfoys just had to be careful disposing of old clothes. But instead of being careful, wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to say: "I forbid you to pursuit freedom"? Yet, Dobby picked up the sock that freed him from the ground...

Hypothesis 1: slippery Lucius never thought of that.

Hypothesis 2: you can't forbid an elf to pursuit freedom.

Hypothesis 3: an elf can disobey a direct order.

I always go for Hyp 3 though Hyp 2 makes a lot of sense to me too. The master can't order thoughts or feelings into an elf. The elf has to complete its chores and obey *direct* orders, but nothing else. And you'd have to be a contract expert to give orders so *direct* that the elf couldn't twist them (*careful* slippery Lucius?). To the common mortal, if the elf wants to be free, it'll trick you into it.

Any thoughts?

 

Susana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]