Neither “Either/Or” nor “Both/And”

The other morning I was talking to one of our classes about complexity in congregations, in theories, in pretty much everything — and I birthed an idea that had hitherto only been toying with me, awaiting the occasion to pop out of my mouth. “We know that we can’t deal with people on an either/or basis,” I allowed; “there are always shades, nuances, hybrids, unanticipated subtleties. ‘Either/or’ is the mode of modern effectiveness: ‘Don’t bother me with the details, we have to get this thing moving.’ Modernity thrived on compartmentalization, on analysis, on deciding which differences made a differences and which didn’t (from a dominant-culture perspective, which operated as the natural or necessary or obvious way of thinking).
 
“But after decades of modernity, we see that lumping people together into categories based on dominant-culture thinking doesn’t pan out. The category ‘colored’ worked adequately for White cultures, for a while; but ‘colored’ people aren’t all the same, and — surprise, surprise — white is a color, too. Either/or logic fails us and effaces the differences that make us interesting, indeed that make us who we are.
 
“But ‘both/and’ doesn’t solve our problems. Although this is the easiest and most prominent alternative to either/or, both/and simply occludes the necessary distinction-making that constitutes real behavior in the real world. When leaders start talking both/and, I keep a close eye on what they’re trying to distract me from noticing: the exclusions and privileges that inevitably permeate jolly, inclusive, both/and thinking. At least when the system’s working on either/or logic, one can point out ways that particular cases disrupt, defeat, the system of categorization; when both/and rules the system, there’s no explicit categorization in place against which one could push.”
 
So if not either/or (on one hand) or both/and (on the other), what? I proposed an idea that had been flitting through my thoughts intermittently: “both/but.” (That’s “but,” not “butt.”) In other words — and I hope we’re not locked into using “both” and “but” in every example of this sort of thinking — we can operate from a principle of openness, but since we’re always about making distinctions all the time anyway, we’re practically distinction-making creatures, we follow our gesture of inclusion with explicit reservations about the distinctions we’ making. We begin by acknowledging that there’s probably something to be said on both sides of an apparent impasse — but since we can’t have all of both options, we’re going to have to work out some alternative that, ideally, derives strength from the best of both proposals.
 
It’s not a revolution, but it’s a way of resisting modern binary thinking, allegedly-postmodern indifferentism, in the name of working together toward something else. And if someone like Seth Godin or Rick Warren writes a best-selling self-help, business-guru book out of it, I’m claiming prior art right here.
 
DRMA: “Burning Down the House” by the Talking Heads; “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” by Bruce Springsteen (Pippa used to think this was “Devil in the Freezer”); “Stop in the Name of Love” by the Supremes; “The Long And Winding Road” by the Beatles; “Penetration” by Tom Verlaine; “Souvenir From A Dream” by Tom Verlaine; “Wichita Sutra Vortex” by Philip Glass; “Plastic Man” by the Kinks; “Everything” by Ben Harper; “Can’t Help Falling in Love” by Elvis Presley; “Nothing Is Easy” by Jethro Tull; “Outtasite (Outta Mind)” by Wilco.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Neither “Either/Or” nor “Both/And”

  1. john sandeman says:

    I think you might be onto something here. Let me ask the obvious question. Given that your PB characterises TEC as moving from both/and to either/or at the time of its GC last year,(in his latest ENS statement)are you saying both/but is a better fit in that situation? And what would a both/but resolution of the conflict look like?

  2. Imagine how hard I’m working not to take this whole post PERSONALLY…

    ;)

  3. AKMA says:

    Oh, no! I wasn’t — I didn’t mean — uh — what I — ummmmmm. . . .

    Uh — does it help if I say I have the utmost, utmost respect for you, Pascale, and wasn’t for a moment thinking of your title? And if I had thought of it, would have sought a more deferential way of proposing my idea?

    Well, maybe not.

    What about, both “both/and” and “both/but”?

    I have the feeling that the longer I write, the more trouble I’ll get into. . . . ;-)

  4. great job clarifying the issues. (although the above posts are obscure to me being new to amka’s blog). I’ve also always been hesitant to affirm how the both/and concept get thrown around, especially b/c it so quite degenerates into a binary opposition b/w “both/and” and “either/or” (” oh, you’re on of those either/or people!!!”) which then mades the speak on of those people…

    I like the both/but idea, but it seems that properly used “both/and” would signify what you are getting at, it just that when people say it they really mean “all/and, with no exceptions,”.

    But your suspicion of veiled power is on the mark…so do we change the language, or reclaim it?

  5. Pingback: Akma » Further Beyond Binary

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>