“I would prefer not to.” Not a direct and outright refusal, not a submissive and beaten-down acquiescence, and not a back-handed and sharp challenge; just a simple five-word response that elicits anything but a simple response.
Jenny Odell, in her book “How to Do Nothing”, used this phrase from Herman Melville’s protagonist, Bartleby, in his short story “Bartelby the Scrivener.”
Jenny Odell’s third chapter in “How to Do Nothing” covers resistance to all of the demands placed on us today and throughout history. The first form of resistance is direct refusal; the worker simply declares they will not perform a task, period. This form is straight-forward but does not allow for any further discussion or actions; the requestor of the work simply accepts the refusal or, more likely, disciplines or fires the worker. A second form of resistance is a sarcastic response of “fine, I will do it” to a request to do a task most likely will not be tolerated well. The worker is still performing the task and the boss who requested the task may grow tired of sarcasm. A third form is passive resistance, the ability of the worker to not only refute the task presented but also refute the very question being asked. The narrator in the story Bartelby the Scrivener, the owner of the firm, states “Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance.”
At first, Barteby is a good, although quiet and unassuming, worker who accepts and completes the assignments given to him without question or complaint. Until one day when he does not. He simply considers the request to work and replies with “I would prefer not to.” This causes great confusion with the owner as it is neither a consent to perform the task nor an outright refusal. Instead, it is a rather polite and possibly open-for-negotiation comment that would require a definitive order to perform the work from the owner. This is the key to Bartelby’s argument; not directly refusing the task or snapping an aggressive positive response that would leave no doubt he did not want to do it.
Taking passive resistance a step further is creative resistance; this is a different and perhaps more unique approach of pushing back on certain tasks and requests. Bartleby initially proved his work was good and proficient; he was not lazy or incompetent. He showed he had value and proved his worth. Later, though, he started pushing back on certain tasks in a creative manner; his reply to these tasks or requests was “I would prefer not to.” This response places results in more of a negotiation; the boss has the first step by asking for work or a task to be performed. Usually, workers feel the pressure to immediately accept the task and do it and reply with a “yes.” With Bartleby’s response, there is neither a “yes” nor a “no”, instead, the initiative passes back to the boss for a third step. In Bartleby’s case, this confused and stumped the boss who never really responded. Bartleby’s boss could have responded with a definitive “do the task or you will be fired” or something similar and this would then have passed the ball back into Bartleby’s court with a clear choice of doing the task or losing his job. As we read, Bartleby’s boss never made that third decision and thus Bartleby did not have to do the task.
As Jenny Odell notes, workers need some method of effectively pushing back against the work-load, regardless of how bad the economy is. The third way after direct refusal or sarcastically agreeing is to find a creative way to subtly negotiate a request for work or a task. Bartleby managed to accomplish this by himself, but developing a plan with other workers would probably work better. As Jenny Odell mentioned, perhaps taking a wider view of everything and developing an ongoing training plan to understand and gently withdraw from “such forces (that) have learned manipulate, and to know when we are being guilted, threatened, and gaslighted into reactions that come not for will and reflection but from fear and anxiety.” Jenny Odell also mentioned Diogenes and the attempt of cynicism to “wake up the populace from a general stupor.” By developing a creative wider-view method of subtle refusal, we are taking our attention away not from just the specific task but the overall relationship between the boss and the worker. We are creating an environment of negotiation rather than the absolute following of orders. This change of environment is what we are really seeking; everyone wants to be treated fairly and as equals, not simply be told what to do or exist in a cut-throat culture.
So, in today’s society, especially with Covid-19 affecting the economy, how do workers push back on unreasonable or overbearing demands from their employers? A direct refusal or outright confrontation most likely will not succeed as this too directly challenges employers and other groups, unless a large number of workers also directly refuse or push back together. Likewise, a sarcastic response of “fine, I will do it” to a request to do a task most likely will not be tolerated well. The worker is still performing the task and the boss who requested the task may grow tired of sarcasm.
Creative resistance may be used in many ways in today’s society and with today’s technology. All companies are concerned with how they and their products are viewed. This is where the negotiation may be used. Workers, all using the same tactics, would negotiate with the bosses and owners on working conditions, amount of time on the job, number of work breaks, what they can do during the breaks, pay, etc. The bosses have work that needs to be completed and the workers know the best way to do this. If the workers are able to negotiate, everyone may win; the work gets completed and the workers are more satisfied. This may require creativity where all parts of the work are available for discussion. If the workers decide more breaks are needed, perhaps the owners would install pool tables or ping-pong tables for worker enjoyment. Perhaps they can add rooms to be quiet or rooms for using phones. If the workers want to spend more time away from work, perhaps a more flexible schedule could be developed including working from home, working evening, working weekends, etc. If the workers do not have enough time to eat lunch, perhaps the business would be able to provide free healthy snacks and drinks in the work area. So, going one step farther, workers would not say “No, I will not do that” or even “I would prefer not to” but rather “I would prefer not to do it that way, I would prefer to do it like this.” This puts the ball in the boss’s court; if the recommendation from the workers is good, but boss will have a difficult time in saying no. If they do say no, the workers will come up with another recommendation. Eventually, the boss will have to agree to something or the boss may be called out to the owner or social media as being a dictator.
This creative resistance approach would provide the best compromise for everyone. Workers will have more of a say about how and where they do their jobs; they will be happier and less stressed out. Owners and bosses would also have a happier place and agreements with workers to complete the work. Their company would have high reviews on social media from their own workers and workers who are able to set their own standards will work better and make better products.
It starts with a “I would prefer not to” to make everyone think and proceeds to a “I would prefer not to do it that way, I would prefer to do it like this.”
