Bartleby’s ‘I would prefer not to’ refuses the terms of questioning itself

Evidence

This gets at Bartleby’s next-level refusal: he not only will not do what he is asked, he answers in a way that negates the terms of the question. Alexander Cooke summarizes Deleuze’s reading of the story: … Bartleby does not refuse to do anything. If Bartleby had said, “I will not,” his act of resistance would have merely negated the law. Having negated in relation to the law, this transgression would have perfectly fulfilled the law’s function. — Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing, 262

Categorization

• XREF: This is the precise mechanism for the reader’s defense task — distinguishing genuine refusal from mere negation-within-the-system. Connects to the ‘manifest dismantling’ frame in Odell’s later chapters and to Can’t-internal vs Can’t-external dynamics.
• QUESTION: What does refusing to engage a refusal look like in practice beyond literature — and when does it tip into mere apathy/checking-out?