The value of obscurity
In a world of influencers, thought-leaders, and agenda setters, what value does obscurity bring to the table? The humble 'footnote' serves as our opening protagonist.
Welcome to Wait! Just Listen, a weekly series of short essays dedicated to unpacking moments of humanness from the all-consuming web of digitisation. If this type of content tickles your fancy or any other part of your intellectual self, please consider subscribing. Also, a warm welcome to the influx of new subscribers who have ardently joined us on this literary voyage.
“…obscurity wraps about a man like a mist; obscurity is dark, ample and free; obscurity lets the mind take its way unimpeded. Over the obscure man is poured the merciful suffusion of darkness. None knows where he goes or comes. He may seek the truth and speak it; he alone is free; he alone is truthful; he alone is at peace…” - Virginia Woolf, Orlando: A Biography
I’ve just completed Anthony Grafton’s 256 page masterpiece on the history of the humble footnote. Yes, footnote1. The lowly denigrated footnote has typically been shrouded in obscurity, perhaps unfairly relegated as part of a writer’s afterthought; a haphazard inclusion to add context and clarify. Grafton masterfully explains that the footnote, despite its obscurity, is the one form of proof normally supplied by historians in support of their assertions.
For Grafton, it is in the footnotes where peripheral but important historical characters retain a dim shadowy afterlife. He eulogises the footnote as crucial in exposing past injustices of modern governments in “conceal(ing) the compromises they have made, the deaths they have caused, the tortures they…have inflicted”. This despised and overlooked historical and literary device has conjured some of the most grandiose worldly revelations.
Ultimately the book asserts that while the footnote is long the refuge of the marginal it speaks to the progression of history and historical thought processes. It confers proof that the historian has excavated into the depths of his resources, dusting off the yellowed pages of necessary documents thus exhausting all literature on the topic. It is, in short, a badge of legitimacy.
Today’s unlikely opening protagonist has made me think about value of obscurity in our digital age. That cloak of inconspicuousness over the common person in the ‘sagely’ company2 of influencers, thought-leaders and agenda setters. We are well cued in on the impact of influencers. But what are the stories of people who remain on the fringes - which is most of us? The one’s that inadvertently contribute to the limelight of the ‘big-hitters’ but otherwise remain largely obscure.
But before I unpack obscurity and its digitised relevance (or irrelevance depending how you see it), I feel compelled to provide you, my discerning reader, with a brief etymology of the word. Well, maybe not compelled, but mainly because I find such things oddly riveting.
Obscure comes from Latin word, obscurus, which alludes towards something or someone being in a state of darkness, dimness and shrouded in general ambiguity. We tend to use obscure in the metaphorical sense: an obscure village is nestled away in the countryside, and an obscure poet is little known and probably insignificant. The interplay between what is visible and invisible often adds a liminal quality to being obscure; being on the edges of public consciousness, present yet not with any presence. This seeming unaccountability however can be beneficial and I’ll get to this in more detail. But first let’s look at how obscurity plays out on digital media.
Obscurity is paradoxically ever more visible on social media. It is felt and experienced more deeply. The frequent verbiage of platitudes, prescriptive statements of wisdom and pseudo-motivational comments from popular media accounts to their 1.5 million followers further highlights your ‘nothingness’ and insignificance. But this of course, as you know, is good old fashioned rubbish. There is merit to being obscure beyond the witty smugness it affords you to scorn over those with more social clout.
Being an unknown (or an “obscurist") provides one with the freedom to vacillate between various viewpoints and agendas without commitment. There is no ideological mask to uphold and no public expectation to meet or disappoint. You don’t have to be a champion for the left or right; labels do not govern your subjectivity, you do. This is truly liberating because an engaged intellect is one that remains unimpeded by mental templates of what could be or should be. You are the master of your own digital voyage.
Too often, I’ve seen popular versatile thinkers fall victim to their own fame. Their role being reduced to that of an ideological ambassador, and their craft, simply a mimetic product of that ideology. Such a result is detrimental to art and the creative process. There is nothing more stifling for a creator than having his/her image tragically shoehorned into a vessel of fixed ideas. There is no compulsion to conform when there are no public expectations.
With obscurity comes an element of seductive mystery. Mystery is good. Very good in fact. It is particularly useful for those who actually have insightful things to say online because you have the element of surprise on your side. There is the possibility for revelation - a divine gift to the unsuspecting reader/audience member who serendipitously stumbles upon your little haven of ideas/tweets/photographs.
Obscurity in this sense carries with it a sheen similar to what relatively unknown indie bands possess when they first release an album. People take pride in knowing the names and song lyrics to these obscure bands because such snippets of knowledge have cultural capital. Like the historian who achieves professional mastery through his/her curation of footnotes, the music-lover is validated through knowledge of bands and music from afar.
Sometimes the public discovery of talent can signal the demise of ones obscurity. But there is a pay-off, and a substantial one at that. There is something glamorous about being part of a rags-to-riches story, someone who has done the hard yards, paid their dues, and is now tasting the sweet nectar of success. I acknowledge that there would be current day influencers who have gone through that journey (rappers are finely tuned towards monetising their beginnings), but not many are as vocal about their roots because it isn’t always a selling point.
Then there is the added benefit of how obscurity frees one from the trappings of traditional benchmarks of success. You are less obsessed with numbers in general. There is less anxiety over performance indicators. The difference between a 100 followers or a 150 followers is less consequential. You post and tweet because something truly resonates with you. There is less pressure to appease everyone. Your focus is squarely on nurturing this small community that you have - one that was built through a sincere adherence to your own values not someone else’s.
Finally, there is also something mesmerisingly beautiful about operating in the shadows whilst surveying the pulse of society. The term cyberflâneur has on occasion been used to refer a person who 'strolls' through the information space, taking in the virtual architecture and remaining anonymous, living a virtual life of idle leisure. You traverse through the web’s many crevices (YouTube being one of them) with little purpose or intention, holding on to a curious child-like playfulness and living in each moment of engagement with detachment.
So for what it is worth, there is value in being obscure.
Perhaps Grafton’s reverence of the footnote wasn’t just about its epistemological value to history. It was a passionate entreaty to society to recognise invisibility as a state of potential and opportunity. Because there is something freeing about being obscure.
If you enjoyed today’s explorative journey into the realms of the obscure, please share this article with a friend or better yet, get a friend to subscribe. As always, I love to hear from new subscribers, so if you’ve signed up in the last couple of weeks, drop a comment or send me a message on Twitter: @trippingwords. Until next time.
This is a footnote. I kid you not.
Apologies for the thinly veiled sacarsm. I couldn’t help it. Hmm, maybe I could.
thank you for the article. despite holding an initial bias that they may hold simularities, obscurity and anonymity appear to provoke different curiousities, receptiveness and empathy of a reader that deserves further reflection.
"..... the footnote, despite its obscurity, is the one form of proof normally supplied by historians in support of their assertions" hence the footnote is not just a footnote. Thank you for opening up our minds.