Mike Caulfield discusses the “banal uselessness of the binary utopian critique”:
I was watching Jesse Stommel at NWeLearn this past week give an excellent presentation on grading. In it he suggested a number of alternatives to traditional grading, and outlined some of the ways that traditional grading is baked into the system.
And the end of the talk, the inevitable hand: “Your presentation seems so BINARY,” says the questioner, “Why is it so either/or? Why can’t it be both/and?”
The problem with this?
Saying “Why is this so binary?” when presented with an alternate, minority vision is simply a way of supporting the status quo, by not engaging with the reality that the dominant paradigm is NOT “both/and” but rather “almost entirely this”. The world of the person making the “utopian binary” critique is one where they get to ignore the existing disparities the binary calls to light — a trick most recently seen in the ridiculous #alllivesmatter hash tag: “But why single out black lives?”
The “utopian” critique is very similar —
Them: “If this cannot solve all problems, then how can we be excited about it?”
Me: “But I didn’t say it solved all problems!”
Them: “Aha! So you admit it doesn’t solve anything!”
Me: “Um, which one of us is utopian again?”
Looked at another way, theory is a lens, and lenses by definition distort. That’s the function of a lens. See Nuance Traps