What I found particularly interesting about "Bartleby, the Scrivener" is its wild duality of implication in terms of the whole "cog in the corporate machine" idea.This duality is kind of built up through implication though.
On one side Bartleby's refusal to do anything doesn't just free him from the shackles of corporate bondage, his refusal to work actively disrupts the work place. It bothers his boss to the point where he spends nearly the whole story obsessing over it. So Here we have the idea that "the removal of on cog can disrupt the entire machine" in that the refusal of this one cog to function actually stops the cogs that rely on that cog to stop functioning as well. This I think hints at some latent but substantial individual power, even in the face of "dehumanizing labour".
On the other hand this is always undercut by the idea that Bartleby's boss could and should just replace him. Bartleby should be replaceable. In theory "one cog" should not bring down the entire machine.
What's so interesting about this to me is the way it plays with the readers expectation to make its point. It's the reader's expectation that Bartleby should be replaceable, that his refusal to work should not break the entire corporate machine. But it does. It subverts the reader's expectations of reality to teach them the value of a single individual in the face of society.
Side note/rebutal: Yes, as the two of you have stated, Bartleby's refusal to do anything does represent a kind of freedom gained in a refusal to adhere to societal norms. But, I don't believe that this refusal is quite as Emersonian as it seems. Or perhaps it is, but I will explain that in a second. Emerson's particular brand of Self-reliance is not simply a passive refusal to adhere to societal rules, trends and ideologies but rather and active refusal of them in favor of some personally found alternative. Bartleby's refusal is simply that, a refusal, he doesn't DO anything else instead, he simply says "I don't want to". I think Emerson would absolutely hate this idea of rebellion for the sake of rebellion. However, I think what this might highlight, from an Emersonian perspective, is the very importance of a personally driven alternative. Because the point of self-reliance is not to simply refuse to comply but to evaluate, through introspection, what facets of law and society are good or bad FOR YOU, and either comply or do something completely different in response.