I feel this constant tension between what *I* prefer/what is good for me specifically, and what is good for women/families in general. I understand the general need and desire for better childcare options, but years ago, there was talk about mandatory pre-school as the best option for childcare. As a homeschooling, stay at home mom, that sounds absolutely terrible! I can do a better job raising my kids than the state or a teacher who is also caring for 30 other children. But a mom who is itching to get back to work, or a single mom? It could be a very different story.
I just want to be left alone by the state. I don't really want to be seen...but I'm not comfortable saying that's what's best for all of even most women. Someone else left a comment about the abuse women can endure when they're less legible, yet I find myself thriving in a mutually respectful marriage where my husband holds all the "visible power" of a prestigious degree and job. I don't feel any less a person for my lack of formal higher education (though I will finish one day!) Or my zero economic contribution. As Tasha Tudor said, "you can read Shakespeare while stirring the jam". (In my case, it's currently Boethius.) Yet usually it's the conversation about efforts to make women like me more legible that makes me feel "less than."
I don't really know where I'm going in all of this, but just feel really grateful for the conversation and perspectives I see here!
I also thought of homeschooling as a great example. I have homeschooled all four of my kids through graduation, and as they have gotten older I have thought about how in some ways it's selfish for me to keep these amazing humans at home with me and not share our faith, intelligence, kindness, and even financial resources with the greater community via public school. Obviously we do share these gifts with the greater community, but not in that very specific way that's very needed.
I think this depends a bit on the mode of homeschooling. My husband was homeschooled through high school in a community with other homeschooling families, so he led a Shakespeare troupe that persisted for some time after he went to college. I think it's good for a family to not feel enclosed but what the openness to the community looks like can take many forms
“Ask yourself: Will this satisfy/ A woman who is satisfied to bear a child?”
I wonder if the benefits of illegibility are really useful-- or even attainable-- for us as individuals? or if they only emerge in relationship, in interdependence; in community. Much of this, as you argue on this Substack, is in the purview of women. And in his poem, WB contends that the legible, civilized, official, economic world is simply *incapable* of seeing-- much less satisfying-- much less valuing-- the deeply human needs and joys that an idiṓtēs might name as essential and primary.
Came here to say something exactly along these lines! And looove that poem! If we measure the 'hidden surplus' along economic or capitalist lines, that runs counter to the nature of the benefits we are really seeking in community and with each other (the good life, the beautiful world).
"So, friends, every day do something
that won’t compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing."
Trying to find ways to make women more legible to our current systems *actively* runs counter to building new systems that are humane. Which isn't to say some of that work isn't very important in the short or medium term, just that small wins within a broken system can actively make long term goals and bigger shifts harder to win. It's a tradeoff that we should be aware of.
The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you.
"The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you."
Martha--"[The hidden surplus is] ...the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal." reminded me of this description of... datsjas (sp?) in the countryside in Soviet (puppet) states. (link to source is at the end of this comment)
"I stayed with a friend in Lithuania a few years back. She’s born in the early 1970’s and has lived in the same Soviet flat all of her life. The apartment struck me as spacious; 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen and large living room. The kitchen however, was tiny in a way that seemed odd, given the size of the other rooms. I asked her about this, and she explained to me that the state wanted to discourage the family unit to spend too much time together. Shared meals are central to family time.
The idea was that mom and dad took off to work in the morning, young kids were brought to nurseries, older kids to school and each would have their breakfast and hot lunch there. In the evenings, the family would only eat some bread.
The interesting thing is, that pretty much the opposite happened. City families would go to their datsja’s in the countryside every weekend and have large gardens there. They would bring home their harvest to their tiny kitchens in the city and everybody in the family would help preserve the fruits and veggies. Thus grew a very strong do-it-yourself food mentality that lasts until today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet era.
During the week I spent at my friends’ apartment, we ate homegrown veggies and fruits every day. The lemonade, bread and various dairy products were homemade and we had honey from the beehives in the datsja.
Now this family is by no means poor (both parents have master degrees and good jobs) and Lithuania is a member of the European Union nowadays. My friend told me that most people still do this because it’s fun and it brings the family together.
It strikes me as ironic that the very thing the Communist Party tried to achieve totally failed, all while that exact same thing happened in the free West. People had big and shiny kitchens from the 1960’s onwards, but used these kitchens less and less. Sharing a daily meal together is not the norm for families anymore, let alone growing, harvesting and preserving food together. Mom and dad take off to work in the morning, the young kids go to nurseries, the older kids to school. Even in the weekends there are sports events, dates, other outings… to go to separately.
Perhaps freedom isn’t just about being able to do and have everything you want."
I want to say of this, "if you build a top-down system... if it's too confining, the secondary effects might mean that, in practice, you get the OPPOSITE of what you were trying for." (Yet, that's perhaps not quite right!)
Illegible traditions like family meals are a stretch goal for disruption by totalitarian systems. If they can't co-opt it, they will try to engineer its destruction. This is true even when they are communal women's traditions getting disrupted by ostensibly communal and feminist systems like the Soviet one.
I love this whole article, but here's an especially relevant excerpt:
"Evidence in the fields of anthropology suggests that long before women ate last at the table…cooking…was a source of women’s empowerment granting women spiritual authority and economic autonomy."
"Women had control over the crops they harvested, cultivated, cooked and consumed. They were at the centre of what is often referred to as 'gift-giving' societies meaning no one had to 'pay' to eat. Because long before food became a commodity it was a sacred gift of the earth, who as a mother fed all her children."
"It was the shift to ownership of crop and land (usually by an elite class of landholders and the Church) that signalled the end of the Goddesses gift economy."
"Cooking is a living tradition connecting us back to our grandmothers, great grandmothers and lineage of our female ancestors. Women were linked with food not only because they cultivated and prepared it, but also because their own bodies, like the earth, were a source of food and life. And ever since we gathered the first plants and cooked over hot stones, we’ve woven prayers and magic into the food we create."
I think "datsja" is usually spelled "dacha" in English?
I'm fascinated by the idea of people being so contrary as to go after the opposite of what they seem to be pushed towards re the kitchen and communal life. It also reminds me of my grad school roommate who was originally from Ireland. Her family bought the condo they did precisely because of its large kitchen, perfect for family gatherings and always the place that people congregated either at the end of the work day or when we threw a party. I loved that kitchen so much and if I could change one thing about my current house it would be to have just such an eat-in kitchen with a large table.
> "I'm fascinated by the idea of people being so contrary as to go after the opposite of what they seem to be pushed towards re the kitchen and communal life"
Yeah--I want to say I feel like it's because there's this sense there will be scarcity in that area! When my husband was reading "Chen Village," which chronicles the events in one specific village in China during the Cultural Revolution... there was this pattern that the restrictions made people fear there would not be enough food.. and so the people who were local leaders had this tough line to walk: "Do I secretly cultivate my own garden out of fear that the top-down program will fail, so my family will have a reserve? Or do I go 'all in' on putting all my strength/time into the community resource pot so as to 'do my part' / inspire others / gain approval?" (local leaders being the people who A. could get away with something like that but also B. guys who people would be closely observing, ready to point a finger at.)
Love the recollection of the condo where you lived for grad school!
Katie--Thanks for "Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front"! (Never woulda read it otherwise.)
"Your mind will be punched in a card / and shut away in a little drawer" sounds like the words of a deranged Flannery O'Connor character... (Many of them being deranged!) ..who's stumbling towards truth.
Meanwhile, "When they want you to buy something / they will call you. When they want you / to die for profit they will let you know" sounds like it's straight out of something written by "The Last Psychiatrist." (not a blogger I unequivocally recommend--though he's very good for some things.)
Vikki, there are a whole set of Mad Farmer poems, if you want to keep reading! I like the similarity you note of the voice in this poem to the characters in Flannery O'Conner... that's an interesting vein to explore.
Here's another to ponder if you wish: "The Mad Farmer, flying the flag Rough Branch, secedes from the union"
"Come all ye conservatives and liberals/ who want to conserve the good things and be free.../ secede into care for one another and for the good gifts of Heaven and Earth"
I think homeschooling might be one of he most illegible things I do. It's not only about removing education from the public governmental sphere, it's about spending time together as a family. The cornerstone of our homeschool day is when we gather together and I read aloud.
I love: "The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you." I do not have a green thumb nor am I ever going to be a great gardener growing much of my own food, much less a self-sufficient homesteader type. But I see the value in hoarding my time to spend with my family enjoying the good and the beautiful and the true. And I value being able to let my special needs kids learn at their own pace and not have to jump through hoops to access programs that were never designed for them and are a poor fit for encouraging their human flourishing.
>Of course, it doesn’t feel like you’re getting away with something when you cook dinner or change a diaper in the way it might when you head out to your still or your tuber patch.
Well, it should! Cultivate an awareness of when you are doing something radically subversive.
Relatedly, the diaper cream brand Boudreaux's Butt Paste smells like church incense. I no longer worship in Christian churches, but my mothering tasks including changing diapers are sacred, so I think it's fitting.
What feels like "getting away with it" to me is "not needing to keep track of: 1. entertainment & pop culture that 'everyone is watching' / 2. 'cool must-have possessions' / 3. news & politics"!! Examples:
1. I literally ask my friends on Discord, "Is that from a show/movie?" when they post an animated GIF. Like the guy from "The Good Place" going "That's actually worse. You know that's worse, right?" Now I know where it's from! (Contrast this with 2011/2012, me feeling uncomfortable when church friends would ALL talk about the latest superhero movie after Bible Study and I had nothing to contribute. We figured out SOME of how to bridge that gap, but... i'm really happy i get to be a "that one person" who just doesn't watch TV/netflix/movies, and people put up with that.)
3. A dear friend was recently telling me about her burnout from reading one book after another on various justice-related topics. I'm glad she felt like she could say that to me. I'm also not going to just casually tell her that she "doesn't need all that" or that she should "go at things a different way," and expect her to do an immediate 180 degree turn--there's something going on there and I bet she feels an obligation to do this!
Another example--I went to a webinar Gracy Olmstead did with Bonnie Kristian about her book "Untrustworthy" back in October, and Kristian had this delightful mischievous quip about how one of the benefits of Democracy is we get to "delegate the tasks of statesmanship to other people." I was like "I'mma use THAT framing from now on! Umm, er... at least... in my own head!"
Also: "Casually dropping a memorized line from Shakespeare while drinking with your friends was a kind of social performance worth optimizing for, whereas public grandstanding about some distant political issue was not. Today it's the opposite. One will put countless hours of effort into writing impressive tweets, but one would never spend 30 minutes learning a dance, or a scene from a play, just to make a friend laugh at dinner."--Justin Murphy, "Public Knowledge is for Suckers" (I can't. unreservedly. recommend. him. The dude's writing is SO high-variance.)
I love his contrast though! I want to opt for the "Shakespeare for friends" versus politics for the twitter-sphere! And I mostly do.
I'm reading this newsletter while drinking tea. I had literally just put down my copy of Scott's Two Cheers for Anarchism, next to Emily Oyster's Expecting Better. Funny not-coincidences.
Scott is always such a fascinating read. States are bad, but illegibility can be terrifying as well. And ripe for recuperation.
Dancing around Scott's ideas and your point:
- Illegibility is half-compliance. It's pilfering and poaching. It's plausible deniability – a fruitful angle for any dating discourse. Of course wedding rings are legible – flirting might require taking it off, which is visibly suspect (and can guilt a cheater away from going forward).
- "Yeah, I'm doing it now, I'm sending it soon" is workplace illegibility than I'm... using right now haha.
- In the Catholic church, women aren't officially allowed to... have any kind of power, really. They might benefit from illegibility. Hard to say, of course (it's illegible! can't be seen from far away! But women are often the most dynamic gender in a parish.)
My main story here is about a recent controversy here in France. I'm not sure how it started, but there was a feminist discourse vs official church pushback regarding "les servantes d'autel" (altar girls), with the church limiting girls' options to "servantes d'assemblée" (congregation servantes, a made-up position where girls wouldn't go near the altar.) Now, the fun thing is, many churches used to have altar girls without any problem – but now that the issue has been pushed, and the official position been reaffirmed, these churches could no longer remain hidden by illegibility. So they stopped having altar girls.
I appreciate this post so much because I’ve always felt so ambivalent about the idea of legibility. On the one hand, all the problems James C. Scott, you, and others observe. On the other hand, increasing legibility is often the ticket to protection and justice for those who need it most.
Among many (many!) examples, one that comes to mind is the role of religion in state-run schools. While not exactly the same, I feel a similar ambivalence: on the one hand, as a deeply religious person as well as a scholar of religion, I am disappointed at the way human religions are often made completely invisible in school curricula. On the other hand (and also because of my own religious convictions!), I am distrustful of what often happens when religion is brought into the school curricula: either a single religion is co-opted into the service of the state (à la civil religion), or religious differences are watered down and made more palatable in the name of tolerance. Either option for school inclusion ends up distorting religion, in my view. But is the only alternative continuing to remain invisible?
I appreciate the way you name this ambivalence, as it helps me toward a thought I've been trying to formulate since reading Leah's post yesterday. I agree that the idea of legibility is at once helpful and still somewhat problematic. That is, it's a useful and clarifying way to approach the specific things under discussion here, and yet I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it in a broader application to the broader world. As you say, so much depends on the intent of the "reader", the powers-that-be whose goal *may* be working for protection and justice; or whose animus and prejudice might be driving outright oppression and discrimination; or whose thoughtless greed might simply render them unable to attend to the human stakes within an economy.
I mentioned Wendell Berry above, but I think there are also arrows pointing to the benefits of "illegibility" in the powerful canon of Black American literature, whose authors hold in tension the joys, dignity, and complexities of Black lived experience with the evils of enslavement and racism that our history, nation, and society have wrought, and whose effects reverberate today. Better to be illegible to the state that calls you 3/5ths a person, or that seeks to control where you order food or drink water, or that lets a routine traffic stop become a legitimate danger.
But if so, then we continue to flip-flop on whether legibility is desirable-- because if increased legibility does indeed offer protection and justice for those who need it most, then isn't it a fundamentally different kind of system than one which would persecute a cultural or religious or racial minority? or which would fail to see the dignity and necessity of the care work and the vulnerability that attends us all at different stages?
I wonder if this isn't where I land: that legibility (done right) leads to justice, and illegibility (embraced on principle) leads to freedom. But-- justice and freedom aren't the end goal. Beloved community is the goal, and justice and freedom are each merely an attribute of it. And either way you sidestep-- to become more legible to a well-intentioned power or to become less so to a malevolent or indifferent one-- each is still a shortcut toward the same thing: the ultimate aim of authentic, reciprocal, flourishing community (the "kingdom come," one might say).
I think of "legibility" as being about recognition at a distance, where things have to be seen in the aggregate. When a neighbor or a family member doesn't see you, I think of it as a different problem than legibility.
That makes sense, and I see the distinction/precision you’re noting here about the “operational definition” of legibility.
I think I’d still be curious if or how a similar is at play between different people groups or subcultures in society, and what words we’re accustomed to use to describe *that*. What passes for “knowledge” or “information” at the 30,000 foot view, at that more faceless, distant remove; but is in fact reliant on assumption, on stereotype, on an inability to apprehend what is in fact the situation? If a government finds the doings of an independent hill people illegible, couldn’t the same also happen between people groups? Or does legibility hinge more on that specific give and take of authority (or lack thereof) of a system or group in power… is the term most apt when used in relation to a state or a political entity? I always appreciate the chance to learn and stretch my brain while reading along here!
You make me realize that there is a third possible outcome of, or at least way of thinking about, increased legibility. It can, we all acknowledge, lead to greater exploitation. It can also, I hope we all acknowledge, lead to greater justice. But another possibility, and indeed often a step along the way to greater justice, is simply greater *recognition.* So much literature by Black Americans, as well as women and others, simply asks, "See me. Acknowledge that I exist, that I have worth and dignity, that my contributions matter--not only economically but also intellectually and spiritually." I take this to be a major concern of Other Feminisms, in fact: to open our eyes to see women *as women*.
If exploitation and justice are twin poles of increased *state* legibility, what might be the counterpart to recognition for (let's call it) increased *cultural* legibility?
Yes! Cultural legibility, or inter-group legibility. Something distinct from balance sheets or actuarial tables or census data taking stock of the present state of a system-- instead, it comes as the present tense of actual human beings: “Read me. See me. Hear me. This is who I am. This is who we are.” The narrative comes up from the narrators themselves, a firsthand account of “conditions on the ground” from within the parameters of self-perception and lived experience, rather than being handed down or imposed from some overall standardizing, editing (editorializing?) entity.
> 'The bright dividing line between politics and home life would vanish. In practice the “separate spheres” remained separate for a little while longer, but both spheres would now be political.'
This calls to mind two examples... more looking at "interpersonal" interactions than the (mostly) wide-ranging policy-themed ones you mentioned by Helen Andrews above!
1. I have a friend whose partner angrily quarreled with her when she didn't want to answer his inquiry as to which presidential candidate she cast her vote for.
2. Similarly, I was once in a convo with a member of my family-of-origin who was expressing horror that a TV personality (?) spoke positively about Trump. "How could he not have changed his mind?" was the core question by which she was aghast. As the convo progressed, when it became clear I was deliberately not self-identifying to her (RE: who I had voted for in 2016), this family member sent some of the most intimidating anger I have ever received to me across the phone line. (However, it was 2020, a terrible year. When we were talking... and it was beyond the spring of lockdowns: it was summer of explosions of violence or the autumn before the election.) I stopped running my social experiment of reticent silence, caved, and confirmed I had not voted for him.
[Note: I'm requesting you not reference the content of this comment in a follow-up post, Leah. Ironically!! :) ]
Your comment made me reflect on that quote a bit more deeply. While your first example couldn't happen before the right to vote, I have no doubt there were many family quarrels between women about politics long (long long long) before women gained the right to vote.
I generally am suspect of the idea that bright dividing lines really have ever truly existed, or that separate spheres have ever been quite so separate. Women have always played political roles in this country. Think Abigail Adams! Abolitionists! Temperance advocates! Women having and expressing well thought out opinions about the politics of the day is nothing new, even while being able to cast ballots and "fully" participate is relatively so.
If anything, voting probably allows people to expend *less* political effort per unit of influence than other forms of political activism, purely because voting is so easy.
I don't feel like I'm getting away with something when I change a diaper. But I would if the state were trying to tell me which diapers were ok to use and I preferred something else. People who co-sleep or let their babies sleep on their bellies or who leave their kids in the car to run into the store often do feel like they're getting away with something. Or who drink raw milk from their own cows.
It's possible that if our society valued kids and homes, we'd try to legislate more, because that's often how we respond to things we care about. If you think about anything our society cares about - gun laws, abortion, marriage - it's hard to get the conversation to be anything but "what laws should we have?"
So maybe there is a certain value in our society not caring about kids and homes.
Although it isn't only laws. My best Halloween costume probably ever was "working from home." I have to give my sister credit for this idea. My hair and makeup looked great and I had a nice professional shirt, and also sweat pants and slippers. Taking advantage of covid-era sartorial illegiblity.
One way I'm pretty illegible is by being self-employed. I tutor math, and work for myself rather than a tutoring company. I report all my income and pay estimated taxes quarterly, so I make myself legible by doing that. I only have about ten students at any given time, so the government would probably not notice me if I didn't send them money like I do. I'm paid many different ways, some cash, some electronic, so again I could probably fly under the radar if I chose to. I believe, though, in rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, and I believe in the good that can be done with the income I share.
> Do you recognize patterns of your own life in Psmith’s description of barbarism?
Ummm, I think choosing "Discord Cozy Culture" versus the "Twitter-Connected World-Exposure" lifestyle counts? I gain much, and the only thing I am disappointed at missing out on is the ability to post a story I wrote to Margaret Atwood's twitter feed.
ALSO--this brings to mind a low-epistemic-status hypothesis I'm curious about. Interestingly, at least a decade ago, my husband got us tamping down on Youtube ads. We would turn off the audio, sometimes cover them up with another window (not something YT could measure). But these disciplines led to us engaging in measurable-by-YT advertiser avoidance... clicking IMMEDIATELY on the "skip ad" button, and NEVER engaging the content advertised. (not even Grammarly!)
Today, I feel like we seldom get ads on Youtube. (What are other ppl's ad-per-video frequencies? question for any quantitatively-minded folks in this community, if they see this...) I wonder, is it because of our tendencies? I mean, they were measuring us... did they decide we would use Youtube more if we got less ads? (And we still used the same Google accounts the whole time, same ISP.)
We also mainly switched from Google to Duckduckgo. This sounds like a thing hill people are SUPPOSED to do in this tech-saturated age? (if my 1 month of seeing the ads that run on Fox News last summer counts for anything, data-wise.)
But that's not what hill people ACTUALLY do in response to technology? Maybe it's because with FAANG (MAANG?), you dont get '"G"-men, "T"-men, revenuers too / searchin for the place where he [Pappy] made his brew /"lookin', tryna' book 'im." No, you get a nice, polite seemingly-absentee landlord: someone who does not force you to look into their eyes and who does not intimidate you with stacks of (paper!) official documents you need to sign. They are offering you a conveniently free service!! The consequences of the digital monitoring you agree to (who reads those things before you click "I accept", anyway? YES, I am over 13--sign me up!), I think, are that changes are made to the environment you navigate SILENTLY, according to your usage. Some of them happen to you specifically, and some of them seem to only happen in the aggregate. You think you can game the system.
As a 42 yr old never married, no kids queer cis woman (esp currently living in the Midwest), I often feel my life is illegible. I benefit from this illegibility by existing outside of the relentless pressures of “ideal” (read: white, middle-class, ever-optimizing, work-outside-the home-for-pay-and-in-it-for-no-pay, etc.) motherhood and relatedly, compulsory heterosexuality with its entrenched gender norms. A side curiosity I have is this: I’m hyper educated and part of my job is researching (and critiquing) these very gender norms. I think folx try to “make me legible” bc of those facts. “Oh, it makes sense that you aren’t married and don’t have kids and aren’t into men…you were busy doing school and you think about how crummy those norms and specifically how crummy dudes are all day-I get it!” Which a) we are meaning makers, so I understand b) gross. I should be able to have any level of ed and not place my time/energy/value on “landing a man”/having kids c) (vulnerably)possible chicken or the egg situation over here (does it subconsciously allow ME to make my life legible to myself when maybe my authentic being is trying to exist “barbarously” and this is a “civilized” way to do that)?!
I think we need to recognize that the private, insulated, and illegible isn't necessarily barbarous. Instead, it can be a haven from the barbarity of the greater world.
I felt this the most when we lived in Big City, where insanity seemed to reign all around us.
The pandemic pushed us to reinforce our need for privacy, and especially when life outside our house seemed crazier during the pandemic's height and afterwards.
A life grounded in quiet domesticity felt like a haven from all of it. Our current Small City lifestyle really reinforces that, and we are truly appreciative.
Beyond that, I live a lifestyle that makes me very illegible. I work from home, so I'm not out in public as much, yet I have a position in my church that can make me very legible, if I choose to exercise that legibility, but I won't.
I go to church on Sundays, but I prefer being illegible, because my church has been dealing with lots of upheaval and I'm not so arrogant as to believe I can be a savior. I'd rather focus on myself, my family, and the places where legibility makes sense to me.
I think ‘illegibility’ is always harmful for women. The only one who benefits in a relationship between a man and an ‘illegible’ women is a wife-beater, who can assault his punching bad with complete impunity. The only reason anyone wants to hide from the government is to hide from the consequences of breaking the law. In a democracy, the people can and should change bad or burdensome laws. If large numbers of people want to hide from a law — think cannabis or alcohol prohibition — we should reconsider the law, not encourage hiding from it.
I think you're right that illegibility can carry a lot of danger (especially as a lone individual, rather than as part of a tight community).
But I think we all spend a good part of our lives in the less legible/more casual register, and we tend to value those parts more than the most formal/law-shaped parts.
I hate to bring up AI, but while we're being paranoid, it's worth asking how the pros and cons and tactics of being illegible to AI are different from the pros and cons and tactics of being illegible to other powers.
Pro of illegibility: AIs will facilitate a proliferation of sophisticated scams. Being illegible means these will be less tailored to you and therefore less convincing. More here:
Con of illegibility: AIs are currently trained on large data sets often including Wikipedia. It has crossed my mind that cramming some of our illegible stuff into legible Wikipedia articles and edits, even if it ends up being more Procrustean than we'd like, might be a way to preserve some of our culture rather than being increasingly marginalized in ways we currently can't even imagine.
"The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." — George Eliot
I feel this constant tension between what *I* prefer/what is good for me specifically, and what is good for women/families in general. I understand the general need and desire for better childcare options, but years ago, there was talk about mandatory pre-school as the best option for childcare. As a homeschooling, stay at home mom, that sounds absolutely terrible! I can do a better job raising my kids than the state or a teacher who is also caring for 30 other children. But a mom who is itching to get back to work, or a single mom? It could be a very different story.
I just want to be left alone by the state. I don't really want to be seen...but I'm not comfortable saying that's what's best for all of even most women. Someone else left a comment about the abuse women can endure when they're less legible, yet I find myself thriving in a mutually respectful marriage where my husband holds all the "visible power" of a prestigious degree and job. I don't feel any less a person for my lack of formal higher education (though I will finish one day!) Or my zero economic contribution. As Tasha Tudor said, "you can read Shakespeare while stirring the jam". (In my case, it's currently Boethius.) Yet usually it's the conversation about efforts to make women like me more legible that makes me feel "less than."
I don't really know where I'm going in all of this, but just feel really grateful for the conversation and perspectives I see here!
I also thought of homeschooling as a great example. I have homeschooled all four of my kids through graduation, and as they have gotten older I have thought about how in some ways it's selfish for me to keep these amazing humans at home with me and not share our faith, intelligence, kindness, and even financial resources with the greater community via public school. Obviously we do share these gifts with the greater community, but not in that very specific way that's very needed.
I think this depends a bit on the mode of homeschooling. My husband was homeschooled through high school in a community with other homeschooling families, so he led a Shakespeare troupe that persisted for some time after he went to college. I think it's good for a family to not feel enclosed but what the openness to the community looks like can take many forms
Oh! See how Wendell Berry makes the case for “the benefits of the insulation of illegibility” in this poem:
Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front:
https://cals.arizona.edu/~steidl/Liberation.html
“Ask yourself: Will this satisfy/ A woman who is satisfied to bear a child?”
I wonder if the benefits of illegibility are really useful-- or even attainable-- for us as individuals? or if they only emerge in relationship, in interdependence; in community. Much of this, as you argue on this Substack, is in the purview of women. And in his poem, WB contends that the legible, civilized, official, economic world is simply *incapable* of seeing-- much less satisfying-- much less valuing-- the deeply human needs and joys that an idiṓtēs might name as essential and primary.
Came here to say something exactly along these lines! And looove that poem! If we measure the 'hidden surplus' along economic or capitalist lines, that runs counter to the nature of the benefits we are really seeking in community and with each other (the good life, the beautiful world).
"So, friends, every day do something
that won’t compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing."
Trying to find ways to make women more legible to our current systems *actively* runs counter to building new systems that are humane. Which isn't to say some of that work isn't very important in the short or medium term, just that small wins within a broken system can actively make long term goals and bigger shifts harder to win. It's a tradeoff that we should be aware of.
The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you.
"The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you."
I love how you put this, Martha!
Martha--"[The hidden surplus is] ...the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal." reminded me of this description of... datsjas (sp?) in the countryside in Soviet (puppet) states. (link to source is at the end of this comment)
"I stayed with a friend in Lithuania a few years back. She’s born in the early 1970’s and has lived in the same Soviet flat all of her life. The apartment struck me as spacious; 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen and large living room. The kitchen however, was tiny in a way that seemed odd, given the size of the other rooms. I asked her about this, and she explained to me that the state wanted to discourage the family unit to spend too much time together. Shared meals are central to family time.
The idea was that mom and dad took off to work in the morning, young kids were brought to nurseries, older kids to school and each would have their breakfast and hot lunch there. In the evenings, the family would only eat some bread.
The interesting thing is, that pretty much the opposite happened. City families would go to their datsja’s in the countryside every weekend and have large gardens there. They would bring home their harvest to their tiny kitchens in the city and everybody in the family would help preserve the fruits and veggies. Thus grew a very strong do-it-yourself food mentality that lasts until today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet era.
During the week I spent at my friends’ apartment, we ate homegrown veggies and fruits every day. The lemonade, bread and various dairy products were homemade and we had honey from the beehives in the datsja.
Now this family is by no means poor (both parents have master degrees and good jobs) and Lithuania is a member of the European Union nowadays. My friend told me that most people still do this because it’s fun and it brings the family together.
It strikes me as ironic that the very thing the Communist Party tried to achieve totally failed, all while that exact same thing happened in the free West. People had big and shiny kitchens from the 1960’s onwards, but used these kitchens less and less. Sharing a daily meal together is not the norm for families anymore, let alone growing, harvesting and preserving food together. Mom and dad take off to work in the morning, the young kids go to nurseries, the older kids to school. Even in the weekends there are sports events, dates, other outings… to go to separately.
Perhaps freedom isn’t just about being able to do and have everything you want."
I want to say of this, "if you build a top-down system... if it's too confining, the secondary effects might mean that, in practice, you get the OPPOSITE of what you were trying for." (Yet, that's perhaps not quite right!)
Source: https://likemotherlikedaughter.org/2014/05/bits-pieces-with-a-little-savory-pie-how-to/#comments (It's not a blog I know very well--my friend linked me to it because of a post on the novels of Elizabeth Goudge!)
Illegible traditions like family meals are a stretch goal for disruption by totalitarian systems. If they can't co-opt it, they will try to engineer its destruction. This is true even when they are communal women's traditions getting disrupted by ostensibly communal and feminist systems like the Soviet one.
I love this whole article, but here's an especially relevant excerpt:
"Evidence in the fields of anthropology suggests that long before women ate last at the table…cooking…was a source of women’s empowerment granting women spiritual authority and economic autonomy."
"Women had control over the crops they harvested, cultivated, cooked and consumed. They were at the centre of what is often referred to as 'gift-giving' societies meaning no one had to 'pay' to eat. Because long before food became a commodity it was a sacred gift of the earth, who as a mother fed all her children."
"It was the shift to ownership of crop and land (usually by an elite class of landholders and the Church) that signalled the end of the Goddesses gift economy."
"Cooking is a living tradition connecting us back to our grandmothers, great grandmothers and lineage of our female ancestors. Women were linked with food not only because they cultivated and prepared it, but also because their own bodies, like the earth, were a source of food and life. And ever since we gathered the first plants and cooked over hot stones, we’ve woven prayers and magic into the food we create."
https://gathervictoria.com/2017/03/10/the-herstory-of-food-gone-missing
I think "datsja" is usually spelled "dacha" in English?
I'm fascinated by the idea of people being so contrary as to go after the opposite of what they seem to be pushed towards re the kitchen and communal life. It also reminds me of my grad school roommate who was originally from Ireland. Her family bought the condo they did precisely because of its large kitchen, perfect for family gatherings and always the place that people congregated either at the end of the work day or when we threw a party. I loved that kitchen so much and if I could change one thing about my current house it would be to have just such an eat-in kitchen with a large table.
Oh--that makes sense! (spelling)
> "I'm fascinated by the idea of people being so contrary as to go after the opposite of what they seem to be pushed towards re the kitchen and communal life"
Yeah--I want to say I feel like it's because there's this sense there will be scarcity in that area! When my husband was reading "Chen Village," which chronicles the events in one specific village in China during the Cultural Revolution... there was this pattern that the restrictions made people fear there would not be enough food.. and so the people who were local leaders had this tough line to walk: "Do I secretly cultivate my own garden out of fear that the top-down program will fail, so my family will have a reserve? Or do I go 'all in' on putting all my strength/time into the community resource pot so as to 'do my part' / inspire others / gain approval?" (local leaders being the people who A. could get away with something like that but also B. guys who people would be closely observing, ready to point a finger at.)
Love the recollection of the condo where you lived for grad school!
Katie--Thanks for "Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front"! (Never woulda read it otherwise.)
"Your mind will be punched in a card / and shut away in a little drawer" sounds like the words of a deranged Flannery O'Connor character... (Many of them being deranged!) ..who's stumbling towards truth.
Meanwhile, "When they want you to buy something / they will call you. When they want you / to die for profit they will let you know" sounds like it's straight out of something written by "The Last Psychiatrist." (not a blogger I unequivocally recommend--though he's very good for some things.)
:)
Vikki, there are a whole set of Mad Farmer poems, if you want to keep reading! I like the similarity you note of the voice in this poem to the characters in Flannery O'Conner... that's an interesting vein to explore.
Here's another to ponder if you wish: "The Mad Farmer, flying the flag Rough Branch, secedes from the union"
https://earthbound.report/2012/10/04/a-poetic-interlude-with-wendell-berry/
"Come all ye conservatives and liberals/ who want to conserve the good things and be free.../ secede into care for one another and for the good gifts of Heaven and Earth"
Thank you for the poem. I had not encountered it before. The lines that struck me most:
"Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold."
I think homeschooling might be one of he most illegible things I do. It's not only about removing education from the public governmental sphere, it's about spending time together as a family. The cornerstone of our homeschool day is when we gather together and I read aloud.
I love: "The hidden surplus of a bumper crop of untaxed tubers isn't a bunch of tubers. It's the freedom to spend time with your family without worrying about your next meal. It's less time working a field and more time to enjoy your life and the lives around you." I do not have a green thumb nor am I ever going to be a great gardener growing much of my own food, much less a self-sufficient homesteader type. But I see the value in hoarding my time to spend with my family enjoying the good and the beautiful and the true. And I value being able to let my special needs kids learn at their own pace and not have to jump through hoops to access programs that were never designed for them and are a poor fit for encouraging their human flourishing.
>Of course, it doesn’t feel like you’re getting away with something when you cook dinner or change a diaper in the way it might when you head out to your still or your tuber patch.
Well, it should! Cultivate an awareness of when you are doing something radically subversive.
A Liturgy for Changing Diapers, by Doug McKelvey:
tinyurl.com/munhkx4u
Relatedly, the diaper cream brand Boudreaux's Butt Paste smells like church incense. I no longer worship in Christian churches, but my mothering tasks including changing diapers are sacred, so I think it's fitting.
What feels like "getting away with it" to me is "not needing to keep track of: 1. entertainment & pop culture that 'everyone is watching' / 2. 'cool must-have possessions' / 3. news & politics"!! Examples:
1. I literally ask my friends on Discord, "Is that from a show/movie?" when they post an animated GIF. Like the guy from "The Good Place" going "That's actually worse. You know that's worse, right?" Now I know where it's from! (Contrast this with 2011/2012, me feeling uncomfortable when church friends would ALL talk about the latest superhero movie after Bible Study and I had nothing to contribute. We figured out SOME of how to bridge that gap, but... i'm really happy i get to be a "that one person" who just doesn't watch TV/netflix/movies, and people put up with that.)
2. This article: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/commune-parenting-radical-community/ (Leah mentioned it here like 2 yrs ago.)
3. A dear friend was recently telling me about her burnout from reading one book after another on various justice-related topics. I'm glad she felt like she could say that to me. I'm also not going to just casually tell her that she "doesn't need all that" or that she should "go at things a different way," and expect her to do an immediate 180 degree turn--there's something going on there and I bet she feels an obligation to do this!
Another example--I went to a webinar Gracy Olmstead did with Bonnie Kristian about her book "Untrustworthy" back in October, and Kristian had this delightful mischievous quip about how one of the benefits of Democracy is we get to "delegate the tasks of statesmanship to other people." I was like "I'mma use THAT framing from now on! Umm, er... at least... in my own head!"
Also: "Casually dropping a memorized line from Shakespeare while drinking with your friends was a kind of social performance worth optimizing for, whereas public grandstanding about some distant political issue was not. Today it's the opposite. One will put countless hours of effort into writing impressive tweets, but one would never spend 30 minutes learning a dance, or a scene from a play, just to make a friend laugh at dinner."--Justin Murphy, "Public Knowledge is for Suckers" (I can't. unreservedly. recommend. him. The dude's writing is SO high-variance.)
I love his contrast though! I want to opt for the "Shakespeare for friends" versus politics for the twitter-sphere! And I mostly do.
I'm reading this newsletter while drinking tea. I had literally just put down my copy of Scott's Two Cheers for Anarchism, next to Emily Oyster's Expecting Better. Funny not-coincidences.
Scott is always such a fascinating read. States are bad, but illegibility can be terrifying as well. And ripe for recuperation.
Dancing around Scott's ideas and your point:
- Illegibility is half-compliance. It's pilfering and poaching. It's plausible deniability – a fruitful angle for any dating discourse. Of course wedding rings are legible – flirting might require taking it off, which is visibly suspect (and can guilt a cheater away from going forward).
- "Yeah, I'm doing it now, I'm sending it soon" is workplace illegibility than I'm... using right now haha.
- In the Catholic church, women aren't officially allowed to... have any kind of power, really. They might benefit from illegibility. Hard to say, of course (it's illegible! can't be seen from far away! But women are often the most dynamic gender in a parish.)
My main story here is about a recent controversy here in France. I'm not sure how it started, but there was a feminist discourse vs official church pushback regarding "les servantes d'autel" (altar girls), with the church limiting girls' options to "servantes d'assemblée" (congregation servantes, a made-up position where girls wouldn't go near the altar.) Now, the fun thing is, many churches used to have altar girls without any problem – but now that the issue has been pushed, and the official position been reaffirmed, these churches could no longer remain hidden by illegibility. So they stopped having altar girls.
I appreciate this post so much because I’ve always felt so ambivalent about the idea of legibility. On the one hand, all the problems James C. Scott, you, and others observe. On the other hand, increasing legibility is often the ticket to protection and justice for those who need it most.
Among many (many!) examples, one that comes to mind is the role of religion in state-run schools. While not exactly the same, I feel a similar ambivalence: on the one hand, as a deeply religious person as well as a scholar of religion, I am disappointed at the way human religions are often made completely invisible in school curricula. On the other hand (and also because of my own religious convictions!), I am distrustful of what often happens when religion is brought into the school curricula: either a single religion is co-opted into the service of the state (à la civil religion), or religious differences are watered down and made more palatable in the name of tolerance. Either option for school inclusion ends up distorting religion, in my view. But is the only alternative continuing to remain invisible?
I appreciate the way you name this ambivalence, as it helps me toward a thought I've been trying to formulate since reading Leah's post yesterday. I agree that the idea of legibility is at once helpful and still somewhat problematic. That is, it's a useful and clarifying way to approach the specific things under discussion here, and yet I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it in a broader application to the broader world. As you say, so much depends on the intent of the "reader", the powers-that-be whose goal *may* be working for protection and justice; or whose animus and prejudice might be driving outright oppression and discrimination; or whose thoughtless greed might simply render them unable to attend to the human stakes within an economy.
I mentioned Wendell Berry above, but I think there are also arrows pointing to the benefits of "illegibility" in the powerful canon of Black American literature, whose authors hold in tension the joys, dignity, and complexities of Black lived experience with the evils of enslavement and racism that our history, nation, and society have wrought, and whose effects reverberate today. Better to be illegible to the state that calls you 3/5ths a person, or that seeks to control where you order food or drink water, or that lets a routine traffic stop become a legitimate danger.
But if so, then we continue to flip-flop on whether legibility is desirable-- because if increased legibility does indeed offer protection and justice for those who need it most, then isn't it a fundamentally different kind of system than one which would persecute a cultural or religious or racial minority? or which would fail to see the dignity and necessity of the care work and the vulnerability that attends us all at different stages?
I wonder if this isn't where I land: that legibility (done right) leads to justice, and illegibility (embraced on principle) leads to freedom. But-- justice and freedom aren't the end goal. Beloved community is the goal, and justice and freedom are each merely an attribute of it. And either way you sidestep-- to become more legible to a well-intentioned power or to become less so to a malevolent or indifferent one-- each is still a shortcut toward the same thing: the ultimate aim of authentic, reciprocal, flourishing community (the "kingdom come," one might say).
I think of "legibility" as being about recognition at a distance, where things have to be seen in the aggregate. When a neighbor or a family member doesn't see you, I think of it as a different problem than legibility.
That makes sense, and I see the distinction/precision you’re noting here about the “operational definition” of legibility.
I think I’d still be curious if or how a similar is at play between different people groups or subcultures in society, and what words we’re accustomed to use to describe *that*. What passes for “knowledge” or “information” at the 30,000 foot view, at that more faceless, distant remove; but is in fact reliant on assumption, on stereotype, on an inability to apprehend what is in fact the situation? If a government finds the doings of an independent hill people illegible, couldn’t the same also happen between people groups? Or does legibility hinge more on that specific give and take of authority (or lack thereof) of a system or group in power… is the term most apt when used in relation to a state or a political entity? I always appreciate the chance to learn and stretch my brain while reading along here!
Well said, Katie!
You make me realize that there is a third possible outcome of, or at least way of thinking about, increased legibility. It can, we all acknowledge, lead to greater exploitation. It can also, I hope we all acknowledge, lead to greater justice. But another possibility, and indeed often a step along the way to greater justice, is simply greater *recognition.* So much literature by Black Americans, as well as women and others, simply asks, "See me. Acknowledge that I exist, that I have worth and dignity, that my contributions matter--not only economically but also intellectually and spiritually." I take this to be a major concern of Other Feminisms, in fact: to open our eyes to see women *as women*.
If exploitation and justice are twin poles of increased *state* legibility, what might be the counterpart to recognition for (let's call it) increased *cultural* legibility?
Yes! Cultural legibility, or inter-group legibility. Something distinct from balance sheets or actuarial tables or census data taking stock of the present state of a system-- instead, it comes as the present tense of actual human beings: “Read me. See me. Hear me. This is who I am. This is who we are.” The narrative comes up from the narrators themselves, a firsthand account of “conditions on the ground” from within the parameters of self-perception and lived experience, rather than being handed down or imposed from some overall standardizing, editing (editorializing?) entity.
> 'The bright dividing line between politics and home life would vanish. In practice the “separate spheres” remained separate for a little while longer, but both spheres would now be political.'
This calls to mind two examples... more looking at "interpersonal" interactions than the (mostly) wide-ranging policy-themed ones you mentioned by Helen Andrews above!
1. I have a friend whose partner angrily quarreled with her when she didn't want to answer his inquiry as to which presidential candidate she cast her vote for.
2. Similarly, I was once in a convo with a member of my family-of-origin who was expressing horror that a TV personality (?) spoke positively about Trump. "How could he not have changed his mind?" was the core question by which she was aghast. As the convo progressed, when it became clear I was deliberately not self-identifying to her (RE: who I had voted for in 2016), this family member sent some of the most intimidating anger I have ever received to me across the phone line. (However, it was 2020, a terrible year. When we were talking... and it was beyond the spring of lockdowns: it was summer of explosions of violence or the autumn before the election.) I stopped running my social experiment of reticent silence, caved, and confirmed I had not voted for him.
[Note: I'm requesting you not reference the content of this comment in a follow-up post, Leah. Ironically!! :) ]
Your comment made me reflect on that quote a bit more deeply. While your first example couldn't happen before the right to vote, I have no doubt there were many family quarrels between women about politics long (long long long) before women gained the right to vote.
I generally am suspect of the idea that bright dividing lines really have ever truly existed, or that separate spheres have ever been quite so separate. Women have always played political roles in this country. Think Abigail Adams! Abolitionists! Temperance advocates! Women having and expressing well thought out opinions about the politics of the day is nothing new, even while being able to cast ballots and "fully" participate is relatively so.
If anything, voting probably allows people to expend *less* political effort per unit of influence than other forms of political activism, purely because voting is so easy.
“If I were to put her and Psmith into conversation on this topic” — you could also just go to coffee hour at St. John’s.
I couldn't resist.
Come to St. Nicholas instead; the food is worse but we're not cheering on (or shrugging at) a genocidal war.
I don't feel like I'm getting away with something when I change a diaper. But I would if the state were trying to tell me which diapers were ok to use and I preferred something else. People who co-sleep or let their babies sleep on their bellies or who leave their kids in the car to run into the store often do feel like they're getting away with something. Or who drink raw milk from their own cows.
It's possible that if our society valued kids and homes, we'd try to legislate more, because that's often how we respond to things we care about. If you think about anything our society cares about - gun laws, abortion, marriage - it's hard to get the conversation to be anything but "what laws should we have?"
So maybe there is a certain value in our society not caring about kids and homes.
Although it isn't only laws. My best Halloween costume probably ever was "working from home." I have to give my sister credit for this idea. My hair and makeup looked great and I had a nice professional shirt, and also sweat pants and slippers. Taking advantage of covid-era sartorial illegiblity.
One way I'm pretty illegible is by being self-employed. I tutor math, and work for myself rather than a tutoring company. I report all my income and pay estimated taxes quarterly, so I make myself legible by doing that. I only have about ten students at any given time, so the government would probably not notice me if I didn't send them money like I do. I'm paid many different ways, some cash, some electronic, so again I could probably fly under the radar if I chose to. I believe, though, in rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, and I believe in the good that can be done with the income I share.
> Do you recognize patterns of your own life in Psmith’s description of barbarism?
Ummm, I think choosing "Discord Cozy Culture" versus the "Twitter-Connected World-Exposure" lifestyle counts? I gain much, and the only thing I am disappointed at missing out on is the ability to post a story I wrote to Margaret Atwood's twitter feed.
ALSO--this brings to mind a low-epistemic-status hypothesis I'm curious about. Interestingly, at least a decade ago, my husband got us tamping down on Youtube ads. We would turn off the audio, sometimes cover them up with another window (not something YT could measure). But these disciplines led to us engaging in measurable-by-YT advertiser avoidance... clicking IMMEDIATELY on the "skip ad" button, and NEVER engaging the content advertised. (not even Grammarly!)
Today, I feel like we seldom get ads on Youtube. (What are other ppl's ad-per-video frequencies? question for any quantitatively-minded folks in this community, if they see this...) I wonder, is it because of our tendencies? I mean, they were measuring us... did they decide we would use Youtube more if we got less ads? (And we still used the same Google accounts the whole time, same ISP.)
We also mainly switched from Google to Duckduckgo. This sounds like a thing hill people are SUPPOSED to do in this tech-saturated age? (if my 1 month of seeing the ads that run on Fox News last summer counts for anything, data-wise.)
But that's not what hill people ACTUALLY do in response to technology? Maybe it's because with FAANG (MAANG?), you dont get '"G"-men, "T"-men, revenuers too / searchin for the place where he [Pappy] made his brew /"lookin', tryna' book 'im." No, you get a nice, polite seemingly-absentee landlord: someone who does not force you to look into their eyes and who does not intimidate you with stacks of (paper!) official documents you need to sign. They are offering you a conveniently free service!! The consequences of the digital monitoring you agree to (who reads those things before you click "I accept", anyway? YES, I am over 13--sign me up!), I think, are that changes are made to the environment you navigate SILENTLY, according to your usage. Some of them happen to you specifically, and some of them seem to only happen in the aggregate. You think you can game the system.
As a 42 yr old never married, no kids queer cis woman (esp currently living in the Midwest), I often feel my life is illegible. I benefit from this illegibility by existing outside of the relentless pressures of “ideal” (read: white, middle-class, ever-optimizing, work-outside-the home-for-pay-and-in-it-for-no-pay, etc.) motherhood and relatedly, compulsory heterosexuality with its entrenched gender norms. A side curiosity I have is this: I’m hyper educated and part of my job is researching (and critiquing) these very gender norms. I think folx try to “make me legible” bc of those facts. “Oh, it makes sense that you aren’t married and don’t have kids and aren’t into men…you were busy doing school and you think about how crummy those norms and specifically how crummy dudes are all day-I get it!” Which a) we are meaning makers, so I understand b) gross. I should be able to have any level of ed and not place my time/energy/value on “landing a man”/having kids c) (vulnerably)possible chicken or the egg situation over here (does it subconsciously allow ME to make my life legible to myself when maybe my authentic being is trying to exist “barbarously” and this is a “civilized” way to do that)?!
I think we need to recognize that the private, insulated, and illegible isn't necessarily barbarous. Instead, it can be a haven from the barbarity of the greater world.
I felt this the most when we lived in Big City, where insanity seemed to reign all around us.
The pandemic pushed us to reinforce our need for privacy, and especially when life outside our house seemed crazier during the pandemic's height and afterwards.
A life grounded in quiet domesticity felt like a haven from all of it. Our current Small City lifestyle really reinforces that, and we are truly appreciative.
Beyond that, I live a lifestyle that makes me very illegible. I work from home, so I'm not out in public as much, yet I have a position in my church that can make me very legible, if I choose to exercise that legibility, but I won't.
I go to church on Sundays, but I prefer being illegible, because my church has been dealing with lots of upheaval and I'm not so arrogant as to believe I can be a savior. I'd rather focus on myself, my family, and the places where legibility makes sense to me.
I think ‘illegibility’ is always harmful for women. The only one who benefits in a relationship between a man and an ‘illegible’ women is a wife-beater, who can assault his punching bad with complete impunity. The only reason anyone wants to hide from the government is to hide from the consequences of breaking the law. In a democracy, the people can and should change bad or burdensome laws. If large numbers of people want to hide from a law — think cannabis or alcohol prohibition — we should reconsider the law, not encourage hiding from it.
I think you're right that illegibility can carry a lot of danger (especially as a lone individual, rather than as part of a tight community).
But I think we all spend a good part of our lives in the less legible/more casual register, and we tend to value those parts more than the most formal/law-shaped parts.
You might benefit from reading James C Scott's "Weapons of the Weak."
I hate to bring up AI, but while we're being paranoid, it's worth asking how the pros and cons and tactics of being illegible to AI are different from the pros and cons and tactics of being illegible to other powers.
Pro of illegibility: AIs will facilitate a proliferation of sophisticated scams. Being illegible means these will be less tailored to you and therefore less convincing. More here:
https://malmesbury.substack.com/p/its-time-to-worry-about-internet
Con of illegibility: AIs are currently trained on large data sets often including Wikipedia. It has crossed my mind that cramming some of our illegible stuff into legible Wikipedia articles and edits, even if it ends up being more Procrustean than we'd like, might be a way to preserve some of our culture rather than being increasingly marginalized in ways we currently can't even imagine.
"The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." — George Eliot
#herstory