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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162154

Carol earlier:
> > 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. <snip>

Carol:
And what he chooses is to obey Harry. He says "Dobby is a free
house-elf and can obey anyone he likes, followed by "Dobby will do
whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421) (HBP Am. ed. 421).
IOW, he does not say that he doesn't want to obey. He says that he
wants to obey Harry. Oxymoron or no, obedience is his choice--just as
a child chooses to obey or not obey a parent. And you don't obey your
equal. You obey your superior, or someone you regard as your superior. 
You can't disregard the word "obey" in the quotation or make it go
away because you don't want it to be there. 

Carol earlier:
> 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. 
>
Carol:
An employee can give his employer a Christmas present. a servant can
give his master a Christmas present. That does not make their
relationship reciprocal. Nor have I ever heard that an exchange of
socks symbolizes equality. Maybe it symbolizes the right to have warm
feet.

> > Carol earlier:
> > "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:
I don't know that he *wouldn't*, though goblins seem to have a
monopoly on banking, metal working, and mining, all occupations that
Dobby doesn't seem to have any inclination toward or aptitude for,
AFAWK. He seems to be domestically inclined, as you say yourself later
on. He likes human habitations and wizard masters, whether he's paid
by them or not. Neither he nor Winky sought any other sort of
employment during the year or so before Dumbledore hired them.

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:
Not that it's relevant, but I don't see any of us as free, actually.
We all have to earn a living. We--and wizards--just have more freedom
of choice in our occupations than house-elves do, primarily because
our talents and inclinations are more varied. And someone who works
for himself at least has the freedom to set his own hours. Maybe I
should have said freelancer rather than entrepreneur. (I like being my
own boss and not having to fight traffic. But I still have to meet
other people's demands and earn a livng.)
> 
> > 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:
That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your wish
is my command." He says that he'll obey whoever he chooses and that
he'll do whatever Harry wants him to do. (and what he wants Kreacher
to do as well.) In contrast, Ron and Hermione, who *are* his equals, 
would never promise to *obey* him. (However much his temper sometimes
scares Hermione, causing her to go along with him against her better
judgment, she's still not obeying him and regarding him as her master.
Sh helps him or goes along with what he wants to do out of friendship.
(He did the same for her on the potentially disastrous excursion to
the Centaurs.) What, aside from freeing him (hardly an act that an
equal can perform) and giving him socks has Harry done for Dobby that
would make you see them as equals? Has he knitted him clothes or
washed his clothes or cooked his food? Has he accompanied him on his
adventures? The relationship is still that of servant to master, with
Harry giving the orders and Dobby following them. The only difference
between that relationship and the normal house-elf/human relationship
is that Dobby has offered his services, and specifically his
obedience, to his idol, Harry Potter. (Where is the evidence that
Harry idolizes Dobby? They're not equals.)


Carol earlier:
> > 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 is to say, "Harry Potter, sir." Dobby, the free house-elf, has
chosen Harry, just as Kreacher would choose Narcissa or Bellatrix if
he were free.
> 
> > 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:
Of course. I'm talking about an interim solution. Once Voldemort is
defeated, of course such legislation should be passed. See my previous
posts.
> 
> > 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.
>
Carol:
Excellent! It's their *nature* to live in human houses and do house
work. They *like* working for humans who treat them well. I knew we
could agree on something--besides humane treatment for house-elves,
for which we've both been arguing in our separate ways for this entire
thread.

Carol, noting that it would be against a gnome's nature to compel it
to work even if it could, whereas elves require no such compulsion