Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162136

Carol earlier:
<snip> it would be nice to know how the enchantment that binds a
House-Elf to a single family works and who imposed it. I also think
that the desire to serve humans is ingrained, as Dobby illustrates.
He's a free House-Elf and he still *chooses* to serve and obey a human
master, Harry. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Except that 
> a)Harry is not his master, but his friend
> b)"choose to obey" is an oxymoron – if you aren't compelled by a 
> thing, person, agency,  or law to obey, that's not really an act of 
> obedience. "Choose to obey" in fact means "do whatever I choose".

Carol again:
Of course "chooses to obey" is an an oxymoron, but it's Dobby's
oxymoron, not mine: "Dobby is a free house-elf and can obey anyone he
likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). That's a paradoxical view of freedom--a
choice of masters. Or, if you dislike the term "master," a choice of
humans to serve. He doesn't say, "Dobby is a free house-elf and will
not serve anyone." He still wants a human to obey, and he chooses
Harry Potter. And he does not regard "Harry Potter, sir," as a friend
and equal but as someone with the right to give him orders. That
Dobby's obligation to obey him is self-imposed does not make it any
less an obligation in his mind.

Dobby's *choice* to *serve* when no magical bond is compelling him to
do so shows as clearly as anything in the books that service to humans
is ingrained in house-elf nature. Dobby is technically an employee of
Hogwarts and presumably works in the kitchen with the other elves. He
also picks up the hats and socks that Hermione leaves when no other
elf will do it (an unfortunate circumstance in its way because it
leaves Hermione deluded, and the boys either neglect or are afraid to
tell her), but in addition to that, he chooses to obey Harry Potter in
both OoP and HBP and to aid him in GoF. If that's not clear evidence
that Dobby wants to serve his chosen human, I'm Winky.
>  
a-svirn:
> Moreover, he didn't even obey his masters when he was magically 
> bound. His self-punishments are in fact acts of disobedience – he 
> found a loophole in the enchantments and used it to disobey – 
> whenever he chose. Which shows that his longing for freedom was 
> stronger even than magical bonds. Freedom, after all, is first and 
> foremost the freedom of choice. 

Carol:
"Dobby likes getting paid, but he likes work better." And work, for
Dobby, means working for Wizards, not for himself or for another
house-elf or even for a goblin.

And his disobedience has nothing to do with a desire for freedom; it's
a desire to aid and protect Harry Potter, his hero, who is already his
chosen human even before he's freed. You're being a bit slippery here
if you'll forgive me, saying that enslavement is abhorrent because the
slave lacks freedom yet saying that even the most abject slave (Dobby
or Kreacher) has freedom of choice. (I can see *me* making that point,
but I'm not sure how it aids your side of the argument.) So Dobby has
freedom of choice as a slave to the Malfoys and freedom of choice as a
free elf and freedom is first and foremost freedom of choice? Why
would he long for freedom, then, if he already has it?

I think what Dobby longs for in CoS is escape from abuse and from
service to "bad, Dark wizards." He prefers to serve his hero, the Boy
Who Lived, because in his mind (but not Winky's or Kreacher's,
apparently) abuse is associated with Voldemort. He prefers to serve a
Wizard who had the magnanimity to request him to sit down in his
presence "like an equal." That choice of masters is available to Dobby
(who is disobeying the Malfoys by helping, though not yet obeying
Harry) is the same choice he makes when he's "a free house-elf." He
wants to work for a Wizard, and his chosen Wizard is Harry.
> 
Carol:
>  Whatever the enchantment is, it was not what made the House-Elves
want to serve people in the first place. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> In that case why do humans need the enchantment at all? If house-
> elves are slaves by nature why do humans need both magic *and* 
> legislation to keep them enslaved? Kind of redundant.

Carol again:
Good question--unless the enchantment was placed by the house-elves
themselves when they agreed to serve a particular family--a binding
magical contract--and the Wizards took advantage of it. There's no
need for legislation to keep them enslaved, I agree. The legislation
should specify humane treatment for house-elves, with freedom and
reemployment for those who are abused. Of course, they'll need to be
reindoctrinated to understand that freedom under such circumstances is
not a disgrace.

a_svirn: 
> I don't understand what you mean when you say that desire to 
> serve "ingrained". Only God Almighty or Nature Itself can ingrain 
> anything in nature. But we know that elves weren't created as 
> slaves, they were enslaved and kept enslaved by wizards. Therefore 
> whatever it is that "ingrained" into them has been ingrained by 
> wizards. Which rather suggests that "desire to serve" is not an 
> instinct, but a feedback reaction. <snip>

Carol:
See above. Dobby desires to serve Wizards even after he's free. It
can't simply be indoctrination or he probably wouldn't rebel at all,
or if he did, he'd want to be free in the sense that Wizards are free,
to seek first education or training and then employment in their
chosen field, perhaps working for themselves as an entrepreneur. Dobby
uses his freedom to seek employment at Hogwarts, in part because it's
the only paid employment available to him, but once he's there he
*chooses* the added *unpaid service* to Harry Potter, his chosen
human. It isn't enchantment that prevents him from throwing off what
you consider to be the shackles of service to humans. It's choice. He
likes to work. He says so himself. He even talks Dumbledore into
giving him fewer days off and lower pay than Dumbledore offered. And
he not only works for but serves Harry for no pay whatever, choosing
to obey him. If that's not an ingrained, and probably inborn,
instinct, I don't know what is. (The desire to serve a particular
Wizard or family is stronger than the desire to work for humans in
general, as shown by Winky and Kreacher, but in all cases, they want
to serve some human and regard that person as master or mistress even
when that person fires them or dies. Even a free house-elf like Dobby
regards his chosen human as his master, whether he uses the term or
not. "Dobby will do whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421)
And later, his eyes shining with excitement, he says, "And if Dobby
does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry
Potter!" (421-22). (Fortunately, Harry tells him there's no need for
that.) The excitement shows that he's under no enchantment but his own
or the enchantment of his kind. He's willing, even eager, to die for
Harry, or even to kill himself if he fails him. That's no doing of
Wizards (he would not have willingly thrown himself off the tower for
the Malfoys). It's house-elf psychology. As is Kreacher's choice to
disobey *his* legal master and go to Narcissa black Malfoy. They
parallel each other. And if Kreacher were free, we know where he would
go. He would choose to serve either Narcissa or his beloved Miss
Bellatrix (who is probably hiding in that hidden chamber under the
Malfoys' drawing room).

Carol earlier:
> Kreacher is the only one still under any sort of compulsion to obey,
and he openly resents and insults his master, but he would happily
serve "the pureblood grand-nephew of [his] old mistress." No magic
compels him to be loyal to the now-extinct Black family and its
offshoots with other surnames. It's his choice. 
> 
> a_svirn:
<snip>
> However, his open rebellion proves that he is actually quite
freedom-loving. Slaves aren't supposed to choose their own masters.
>
Carol again:
By George, I think she's got it! Freedom for a house-elf is the
freedom to choose his or her own master, to choose which Wizard or
Wizarding family to serve. That's all they want. That and humane
treatment, which, in the absence of legislation, the Wizard has the
responsibility to provide on his own--as Dumbledore tried and failed
to persuade Sirius Black to do. They don't want Wizard-style freedom,
only the chance to do the kind of work they like (housework) in the
Wizard house of their choice under safe and humane conditions. There's
a reason they're called *house* elves.

BTW, JKR has said in an interview that even though house-elves can
perform magic without wands, there are some things Wizards can do that
house-elves can't. Maybe those things include building houses and
producing the food that house-elves cook, which would explain their
reciprocal relationship. Apparently, house-elves need humans as much
as humans need (or think they need) them. I'm guessing that
house-elves bound themselves to humans in the first place for exactly
this reason. It also explains why even a free house-elf like Dobby
would choose to serve humans rather than fending for himself.
(Kreacher would love to take Dobby's old job.)

Carol, wishing that she could borrow a house-elf to magically sort and
organize her papers