” It is not, of course, that there is anything wrong with making (although it is not all that clear that the world needs more stuff ). It is that the alternative to making is usually not doing nothing — it is nearly always doing things for and with other people, from the barista to Facebook community moderators (Chen 2014) to the social worker to the surgeon. Describing oneself as a maker — regardless of what one actually or mostly does — is a way to accrue the gendered capitalist benefits of being a person who makes products. “
Debbie Chachra, “Beyond Making,” in Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities, ed. Jentry Sayers, Debates in the Digital Humanities (University of Minnesota Press, 2017).
Jo vs. Meg: “making” and “caregiving”
The quotation in the beginning of this blog stuck with me, not just because of what it says about the present, but because it reminded me of something I’ve wrestled with since I was a child reading Little Women. Like many readers, I admired Jo March, a passionate writer who defied conventions and supported herself through her creativity. She seemed independent and admirable, especially in contrast to her sister Meg, who dedicated herself to building a family. When I was younger, I saw Jo as the “cool” one, modern, ambitious, and inspiring, while Meg’s work felt traditional and less impressive. Only as I’ve grown older have I started to question why I valued Jo’s form of “making” more than Meg’s role of care and support. I began to realize that valuing Jo more wasn’t just about personal preference; it reflected a broader societal bias. Jo’s work as a writer fit the mold of a “maker,” while Meg’s work as a caregiver didn’t. Yet both roles require effort, skill, and emotional labor. One is just more easily recognized as valuable in a capitalist, product-focused world.
Real-World Echoes of Gendered Value
This shift in perspective mirrors what Chachra describes. Our culture rewards people who produce visible, sellable things, while undervaluing the essential labor of maintaining, supporting, and nurturing others, work often done by women. I’ve seen this in real life too. The way housewives’ contributions are dismissed, or how teaching and nursing, fields full of skill and responsibility, are seen as “natural” roles for women and therefore less intellectually demanding, and often underpaid.
What I Want to Explore in Digital Humanities
This term, I want to explore how we can use digital methods to amplify voices and roles that have long been overlooked. Making should be a process, not a status symbol — and the ultimate goal, I believe, is not just to make things, but to make life better for everyone.
