By now it is clear that Jenny Odell’s “How to Do Nothing” is a call to resistance of the attention economy. The “nothing” that she urges us to do is a removal from the busyness our capitalist society thrives on as a sort of activism against it. Her underlying goal is to help us find more meaning and perspective in our lives, not feeding into the anxiety the attention economy builds upon. She has furthered this idea, though, by explaining how we can do this in a way that actually makes a long-term effect.
It may be easy to wonder how we can “do nothing” consistently when not all circumstances allow for that. Let’s be real, people have work to complete, bills to pay, and families to raise. Not all of us have time (or money!) for weekend getaways, or even just an hour walk around the park. Odell argues, however, that the form of “political refusal” she suggests “retreats not in space, but in the mind” (38). Doing nothing means more than just escaping our productivity-obsessed environment physically, but also mentally and emotionally. Odell calls this “standing apart.” By standing apart, we “take the view of the outsider without leaving…look at the world (now) from the point of view of the world as it could be” (61-62). This requires an altered state of mind, not a change in location. Therefore, this is something we can grow to do all the time, not just for a weekend.
Let’s use Facebook as an example, one that Odell also uses. She claims that because real refusal of attention happens “first and foremost in the mind,” we should not be concerned with a “‘once-and-for-all’ type of quitting but ongoing training” (93). Thus, she argues that quitting Facebook is “fighting the battle on the wrong plane’ (90). Rather, we should redirect our attitude and attention towards it. Odell believes we must quit the ongoing mind game that Facebook and other social media plays with us. This involves “know[ing] when we are being guilted, threatened, and gaslighted” (93). For Odell, “doing nothing,” and “standing apart” is not about changing if we use social media or not, but changing how we use it, and what we allow to affect us.
There is great validity to Odell’s argument; millions of people use Facebook, and an altered state of attention while scrolling through your feed would certainly be like a protest against the attention economy. However, I do think there is also validity in getting away from Facebook, or other social media sites, altogether. How much time do you spend scrolling through your feed, whether it be Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter? One can spend HOURS mindlessly going through posts. I am not saying there is no benefit to these social media platforms; many forms of good have come out of them. However, deleting a site like Facebook, even just for a time, can help to be a wakeup call of just how much time we spend on it. This new time can be devoted to more worthwhile deeds and forms of “nothing,” like birdwatching, that Odell encourages. Although she argues “total renunciation” would be fruitless, I think it can open our eyes in ways that wouldn’t be possible otherwise, by giving us a chance to really see how much this media affects us, and how changed we are when we are not at its mercy daily (61). In addition, wouldn’t leaving Facebook altogether still be fighting the “hysteria and fear” that Odell criticizes (59)? Aren’t we still choosing to not feed into the harmful commercialism it promotes by just saying “Ok, I’m done with this”? Odell’s suggestion is not a bad on at all; in fact, I really like her argument. However, I do not think it is the only way.
Additionally, deleting Facebook is more recognizable. I certainly do not think we should shout our removal from it from the rooftop, but consider the following situation: You are a Facebook user trying to combat the attention economy, and someone asks if you are on Facebook. Do you say, “Yes, but I am actively resisting the fear-inducing frenzy that this commercial media drives”? Is it possible, yes, but this encounter is unrealistic and quite awkward. On the other hand, if someone who was trying to fight these same issues answered “No, I’m not on Facebook,” that would grab attention much easier, and could lead to a respectful (not boastful) reasoning of why. Odell herself speaks of the benefit of “shock[ing] people out of their habitual stupor,” and this would do just that (66). While Odell’s argument of resisting by changing the mind would be beneficial, how do you spread that strategy around to others? Leaving Facebook shows this resistance, and that it is possible.
I was once having a conversation with my friend about Snapchat. He was complaining about how “toxic” he thinks it is, and that he wished he could just delete it. He admitted that his holdup to doing so was a bad case of FOMO. He also went on to say how he admires people who have deleted it, and that each time he has a conversation with them, he feels more inclined to do it himself. Odell’s tactic of refocusing attention on social media (and in life), is a great way to combat the attention economy personally. However, doing something like actually deleting it is a pure example of NOMO-necessity of missing out, which Odell herself argues for (22). Simply stepping away in this situation of Facebook is not what I think to be a surrender, but an equal fight against the attention economy and the lies it feeds us.