Power centers want the people in the margin to unquestionably follow the rules they had set. Noncompliance has no space in the process of profit-making. Therefore, in a capitalist culture of productivism, refusing to produce (what the system demands) is an act of resistance.
However, refusal is deeply connected to the activist’s background, social status, and privileges. It is especially difficult, if not impossible, for the people who belong to the marginalized communities. A person without financial security cannot afford to question their livelihood. They need to have a sense of social and legal protection in order to raise their voices against the establishment. Odell mentions one needs work and will for practicing refusal. I argue that is not generalizable—just because a person cannot refuse does not necessarily indicate that they do not have the will or are not interested in carrying out the work activism demands; they may just be underprivileged. Competition being a key element of capitalism, one cannot risk losing their job by taking a break for leisure, no matter how important that is for their health. So, it may not be pragmatic for people from underprivileged communities to practice “do nothing”. I was thinking of strike as a well-known political act, in which workers refuse to work until they achieve their demands. But “doing nothing” is not comparable to a strike, it has not been identified as a means of political communication yet, and therefore, it is a far-fetched call to the people to join in, who still operate in the capitalist economy and are in need to secure food and finance first. (268)
Image by Freepik
[Jenny Odell, 2019]
To link a couple of these ideas in another way, doing nothing (and other variations on refusing engagement with the attention economy) involves risk, and, I agree, risk is more perilous for some (e.g., those with fewer buffers) than others (e.g., those with abundant buffers). To Odell’s credit, she acknowledges that doing nothing is not easy, though what follows (i.e., the consequences of doing nothing) are, in her case, more personal and local, such that it stands as a situated activism moreso than a universal strategy. Maybe?