An AND Organization in an OR World
One of the characteristics of White Supremacy Culture is Either/Or Thinking: Viewing situations in rigid binaries like good/bad or right/wrong without room for nuance (haha It only took me until the 2nd blog to say this).
Pick a side.
Individual responsibility or systemic oppression.
Race or class.
Experts or lived experience.
Economic growth or equity.
Technology or humanity.
Us or them.
Bringing it closer to home: Latina OR American.Racist OR a good person.It seems we have become remarkably fond of OR.
OR is VERY convenient. It makes complicated things easier to explain. It gives us teams to join, villains to blame, hashtags to deploy, and strangers to yell at on the internet.
There is just one inconvenient problem:
Life isn't just OR.
Life is AND. We live in AND.
Institutional racism exists.
AND a white family in rural America can be experiencing devastating economic insecurity.
Individual choices matter.
AND the systems surrounding those choices will severely limited the choices available to pick from.
Expertise matters.
AND experts can be wrong.
Lived experience is knowledge.
AND one person's experience cannot tell us everything happening across an entire system.
Technology can reproduce human bias.
AND technology can dramatically expand human capability.
More than one thing can be true.
That shouldn't be a radical proposition.
Increasingly, it feels like one.
The Architecture of OR
The internet was supposed to democratize information.
And in many ways, it did.
Today, most of us carry access to more human knowledge in our pockets than the greatest libraries in history could have contained.
But access to information and the ability to make sense of information are not the same thing.
Someone encounters an unfamiliar subject at breakfast, Googles it at lunch, and by dinner is arguing with a stranger as though they've spent twenty years studying it.
We have more information than ever in human history. AND yet, we have such little understanding, empathy, and compassion than ever in human history.
Reality Doesn't Respect Our Categories
While staring at different grant portals and pipelines, I'm often weary-eyed over the categories picked by funders to focus on -- none of it being a real Venn Diagram of how reality plays out in day to day life.
Education affects employment.
Employment affects housing.
Housing affects health.
Health affects education.
Transportation affects employment.
Public safety affects economic opportunity.
Technology affects virtually all of them.
Race, geography, disability, gender, wealth, history, policy, and power run through the entire system.
Yet our institutions -- public and private -- often divide these realities into agencies, programs, funding streams, disciplines, datasets, and political talking points.
Sure, when you take a look at all 15 Social Determinants of Inequity, it's vast and over-whelming. Then we wonder why solving one problem sometimes creates or expands another.
Reality is an AND system.
Our ability to think about it, solve it, and talk about it needs to become one too.
Civic Intelligence
This is where an idea I've become increasingly obsessed with enters the conversation:
Civic intelligence.
We usually talk about intelligence as something an individual possesses.
But no individual can possibly understand everything necessary to navigate a modern society.
A researcher understands patterns across tons of data observations.
A grandmother who has lived in the same neighborhood for forty years understands changes no dataset captures.
An organizer understands how power actually moves.
A policymaker understands the machinery of government.
A teacher understands what happens when policy reaches a classroom.
A young person understands a world adults are frequently trying to regulate without fully understanding.
Each possesses knowledge.
None possesses all of it.
Civic intelligence asks what becomes possible when we build the capacity to bring those forms of knowledge together—to understand complicated problems, learn from one another, make better decisions, and act collectively.
It doesn't require agreement.
In fact, it depends upon disagreement.
But not the "I am going to disagree with you because I'm a keyboard warrior" kind of disagreement.
Productive disagreement requires something our current information ecosystem doesn't particularly reward:
The possibility that I know something AND you know something I don't.
Equity AND Education AND Democracy
That's also why we named this organization the Center for Equity, Education, and Democracy.
Not Equity, Education or Democracy.
Equity asks who has access to resources, opportunity, and power—and who does not.
Education gives people the knowledge and capabilities necessary to understand the systems affecting their lives.
Democracy gives people meaningful power to participate in shaping those systems.
They aren't three departments.
They're interdependent.
And underneath all three is a simple belief: Knowledge should move.
Researchers teach communities.
Communities teach researchers.
Young people teach institutions.
History teaches technology.
People teach one another.
Because knowledge is power.
And a healthy democracy should be deeply interested in distributing both.
Critique AND Possibility
There is plenty to critique.
Institutional oppression is real.
Educational inequity is real.
Economic insecurity is real.
Our information ecosystem has serious problems.
Artificial intelligence raises profound questions about bias, access, knowledge, labor, and power.
We should understand all of it.
But I have no interest in building the Think Tank of Dystopia.
Understanding what's broken matters only if it increases our capacity to build something better.
So at CEED, we're going to spend a lot of time asking different questions.
What would this system look like if it actually worked?
What knowledge would people need to participate in it?
Who isn't currently at the table?
What can research teach us?
What can lived experience teach us?
What could technology make possible?
What haven't we tried?
And ultimately:
What can we build together?
Research AND lived experience.
Data AND story.
Expertise AND community knowledge.
Technology AND humanity.
Individual agency AND collective responsibility.
Critique AND imagination.
We don't need to eliminate disagreement.
We need to become better at learning through it.
Maybe the way forward doesn't begin by deciding which competing truth wins.
Maybe it begins with becoming capable of holding more than one truth long enough to discover what we've been missing.
Reality is an AND system.
It's time we got better at thinking like one.
Comments