I find it curious that she hasn't been excommunicated. Are her small acts of rebellion a convenient outlet for Peters, a type of performance that satisfies the colonists' need to assert themselves, and that allows Peters to act with impunity on a larger scale?
I find it interesting that she hasn't faced excommunication, which suggests her minor acts of defiance might serve as a safe way for Peters to express her discontent. These small acts could be seen as a way for her to navigate the strict social structures while maintaining some sense of independence.
Such acts may also provide Peters with a sense of power and control, acting as a form of rebellion that satisfies the colonists' desire to assert themselves. This behavior allows Peters to operate without fear of serious repercussions, effectively making her rebellious acts a strategic performance.
