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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162187

> > 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.

a_svirn:
Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's
anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't
really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion.

> Carol:
He says that he
> wants to obey Harry. Oxymoron or no, obedience is his choice--

a_svirn:
Now you are the one expressing yourself in oxymorons.

> Carol:
just as
> a child chooses to obey or not obey a parent.

a_svirn:
That's just it – children don't have that much of a choice in the
matter of obedience. They can rebel against their parents, but the
compulsion is there.

> Carol:
And you don't obey your
> equal.

a_svirn:
Exactly. But I can render services to my equal. If I choose to do so.

> Carol:
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.

a_svirn:
I don't disregard it. I am saying that it is rendered meaningless by
using the oxymoron. Moreover, I think it's really very telling that
Dobby expresses himself that way. He uses the only language he knows –
the only language he was taught. And language is the most powerful
instrument of indoctrination. As Whorf said "We dissect nature along
lines laid down by our native languages". And it is very significant
that even with all the limitations imposed on him by the elivine
pidgin Dobby manages to convey his desire for independence and
abhorrence of compultion.

> > a_svirn:
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.

a_svirn:
Yes, it does. You relationships with employer *are* reciprocal. You
can even be friends with your employer. The owner-slave relationships,
however, aren't reciprocal. And considering that the absence of cloths
in general is 
symbol or ("mark" in Dobby's words) of elves' enslavement, while socks
in particular marked for Dobby his liberation, I'd say the exchange is
symbolic. You exchange gifts of equal value (including symbolic value)
with your equals.

>
> Carol:
> Not that it's relevant, but I don't see any of us as free, actually.
> We all have to earn a living.

a_svirn:
Why isn't it relevant? You take considerable pains to prove that elves
aren't really like us humans when it comes to freedom, that they don't
really want or understand freedom. And then go and say that none of us
are really free. If we, human, aren't really free, and they, elves,
aren't really free, how come we are so different in that respect?

> Carol:
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.

a_svirn:
Huh. Is it slaves' fault that their interests aren't as refined as
their master, then?

> Carol:
> That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your wish
> is my command."

a_svirn:
You make it sound like he is courting Harry.

> Carol:
He says that he'll obey whoever he chooses and that
> he'll do whatever Harry wants him to do.

a_svirn:
Because he wants to repay Harry the favour Harry did to him. Dobby
resented his slavery, he wanted to be free, and Harry gave him his
heart's desire. Not surprisingly, he wants to thank Harry in the only
he knows.

> Carol:
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.)

a_svirn:
They were well on the way on being equals in GOF and OOP. In the last
book, Harry treats Dobby more like inferior. Hardly surprising,
considering he's become a slave owner and rather enjoys the experience.

> > 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.

a_svirn:
Dobby did NOT choose Harry as his master. Even leaving aside the
difference of our interpretations of "choose to obey", you are
building an awful lot on one dubious utterance. Completely ignoring at
the same the time more straightforward statements like "Dobby likes to
be free", "Dobby wants to get paid", "Dobby wants employment" etc.
And there is another simple fact you ignore. Dobby had been unemployed
for two years. Never once during that time did he approach Harry,
though. If he wanted to be Harry's servant why on earth didn't he
apply for the position?


> > a_svirn:
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.

a_svirn:
No, but human residence is (or may be) their natural habitat.

> Carol:
They *like* working for humans who treat them well.

a_svirn:
How one does follow from another?

>
> 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

a_svirn:
Or maybe gnomes simply don't have enough magic to be useful.