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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162143

> Carol:
> 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). 

a_svirn:
I am aware that it's Dobby's oxymoron. But you seem to overlook the
fact that being an oxymoron it negates the meaning of `obey'. What
Dobby actually says is that doesn't want to obey. He wants to do
whatever he chooses. 

> Carol:
That's a paradoxical view of freedom--a
> choice of masters. 

a_svirn:
What's so paradoxical about it? If I am free to choose I am free period. 

> Carol:
Or, if you dislike the term "master," a choice of
> humans to serve. 

a_svirn:
Oh, I am OK with the word "master". It's Dobby who is positively
allergic to it. 

> Carol:
He doesn't say, "Dobby is a free house-elf and will
> not serve anyone." 

a_svirn:
Why should he say anything of the sort? Millions of people go into
service by their own volition – cleaning service, valeting, nursing
etc. And no one would dream to speculate about their nature. 

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
Yes, he does. His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry
bestowed a gift of freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the
favour by only way he knows – render him services. JKR even stressed
the reciprocity of their relationship by the symbolic exchange of socks. 


> 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.

a_svirn:
How do you know that he wouldn't work for a goblin? 

> Carol:
> 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?

a_svirn:
I believe I said quite distinctly that Dobby found a loophole in the
enchantments. He did not have freedom, since the enchantments bound
him to his master, but fortunately the enchantments do not cover all
contingences. Kreacher also found such loopholes;  that's how he
helped to destroy Sirius. Wherein do you see the contradiction? 

> 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, 

a_svirn:
And that's exactly what he does –gets employment in his chosen field. 

> Carol:
perhaps working for themselves as an entrepreneur. 

a_svirn:
Erm. Do you suggest that entrepreneurs are more "naturally free" than
cooks, waiters or cleaners? 

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
That's right. Unpaid service done by your own volition means *favour*.
You do them to friends. 

Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
Yes, he does. Good for him. 

Carol:
He even talks Dumbledore into
> giving him fewer days off and lower pay than Dumbledore offered.

a_svirn:
As you yourself said he was indoctrinated. It's not easy to shake off
a habit of lifetime, but he made a good start. 

Carol:
  He's willing, even eager, to die for
> Harry, 

a_svirn:
So does Ron. And Hermione. So did Sirius. And Dumbledore. 

Carol:
or even to kill himself if he fails him. 

a_svirn:
humans are known do such things too.

Carol:
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).

a_svirn:
As I said, it's the case of both love and conditioning. 

> Carol:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? Freedom for Kreacher is the
freedom to choose his own master.  Freedom for Dobby is to be free and
obey "anyone he likes", that is to say no one. 

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
Or the absence of legislation should be rectified and elves rights
guaranteed by the law. 

> Carol:
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.

a_svirn:
There is. I am guessing house-elves need human houses to live, just
like gnomes need human gardens to live. Unlike gnomes, elves were
prepared to work to justify their presence in the human houses, and
humans took advantage of that.