In Bending the Binary: Polarity Magic in a Nonbinary World, Deborah Lipp addresses a timely question: how do we reconcile traditional magical frameworks, rooted in polarity and binary structures, with a world increasingly embracing nonbinary and fluid understandings of identity and reality? As a Gardnerian Wiccan, Lipp is well-positioned to discuss this subject, particularly given the emphasis on polarity in Wiccan traditions. Unfortunately, while the book’s premise is compelling and much-needed, its delivery lacks cohesion and clarity.
Acknowledging the importance of the subject
Before diving into my critiques, I want to recognise the importance of this book’s subject matter. Lipp clearly feels deeply about the centrality of the binary and polarity in magical practice, and for some practitioners, this remains a cornerstone of their spirituality. This issue resonates deeply with many, and I appreciate Lipp’s effort to open a discussion about it. The ideas she raises are worth exploring, even if I fundamentally disagree with her premise.
I must also admit that I may have underestimated just how central the binary and polarity are to some magical practitioners. I have never found these concepts meaningful or essential in my practice. I’ve also not been part of circles where gender binaries or polarities were explicitly required. For example, my coven has held celebrations in honour of a god and goddess, a goddess alone, and two goddesses. We do not stand with men and women alternating (and many groups I know have more women than men). Anyone can call any deity and perform any role in the ritual. Thus, this book offered a glimpse into a perspective that differs significantly from mine.
Strengths of the book
One of the strengths of this book is its willingness to engage with a contentious topic: the role of gender and polarity in magic, particularly in a modern world where nonbinary and fluid identities are increasingly recognised. Lipp raises interesting questions and allows readers to critically evaluate the role of binary thinking in their spiritual practices. Her passion for the subject is evident, and she attempts to bridge the gap between traditional Wiccan frameworks and more contemporary understandings of gender and identity.
The book has three sections. In section one, Polarity and the Binary, Lipp attempts to define terms such as dualism, binary, and polarity and provides a history of “how we got here.” In section two, Polarities and Binaries, Lipp introduces different ways to understand polarity: Force and Form, Self and Other, Passive and Active, Dominance and Submission, Night and Day, and Gender Polarities. In each chapter, she explores how we can interpret the association of ritual tools within these models and offers ritual ideas. Section three asks an important question: What’s Next? Throughout the book, Lipp offers journal/discussion prompts.
Section two is the practical, engaging, and creative half of the book, and Lipp should have spent more time here. This part showcases her strengths in exploring new ritual frameworks and reinterpreting traditional tools. However, the book overall could have been much shorter. There’s a lot of unnecessary history and extended explorations of alchemy and Kabbalah that could have been more concise.
Where the book falls short
Despite its strengths, the book’s execution falls short. Lipp does not clearly define key terms such as dualism, binary, and polarity. These foundational concepts remain muddled throughout the book, making it difficult to follow her arguments. Additionally, Lipp’s tendency to conflate metaphor with reality creates further confusion. For instance, she challenges and defends the binary-polarity framework in ways that often contradict each other.
For example, Lipp suggests that polarity derives from duality but also claims that polarity can be leveraged even in a non-dualistic worldview. Similarly, she implies that polarity is fundamental to the universe but then describes it as a human-created framework for understanding the world. These inconsistencies undermine the book’s coherence.
Specific issues and missteps
Lipp mischaracterises and oversimplifies several key ideas. For example:
- She states that balance is “key” in magic and psychology. While the idea of balance in magic is worth exploring, saying it is central to psychology oversimplifies the field. Modern psychology values adaptability and dynamic processes like integration and regulation over static or symmetrical balance.
- She uses the North and South Poles to explain binary frameworks, suggesting their existence implies an equator and the whole planet. However, poles are human-defined constructs. These constructs help us organise our understanding but are not inherent to nature.
- In discussing magical correspondences, Lipp refers to the polarity between “male” and “female” trees, but many tree species do not conform to this binary. Later, she acknowledges examples of non-heteronormative reproduction in nature, which contradicts her earlier framing.
- She describes polarity as a catalyst, stating it is not merely two forces but the energy created by their striving toward each other. While this idea has merit, it is overly reductive. For example, catalysts can arise from cooperation or integration, not just tension or opposition. Modern systems thinking—in both science and spirituality—demonstrates that creation often arises from networks of relationships and emergent properties.
- Lipp’s invocation of Force and Form as “the original polarity of creation” is presented as metaphor but often blurs into claims about reality. Force and Form may serve as a symbolic tool but are not an absolute truth. Similarly, her assertion that matter and energy are “truly polar” misrepresents their scientific relationship. Matter and energy are interconvertible, as shown by Einstein’s equation E=mc², suggesting a continuum rather than a polarity.
- Her description of liminality (e.g., dawn and twilight) as cyclical rather than divided is insightful but is undermined when she reverts to gendered metaphors and static roles. This reinforces hierarchical and gendered assumptions, ignoring the fluid, transformative relationships seen in both science and spirituality.
- Lipp’s discussion of gender polarity—implying a range between “polar male” and “polar female”—attempts to be inclusive but remains constrained by binary thinking. Framing gender within polarities reinforces the notion that all genders must relate to male and female archetypes, marginalising identities that exist outside this framework.
The premise of Bending the Binary
Let’s be clear about the premise of this book. Lipp emphasises that using polarity is optional but does not reject the binary-polarity framework; she finds it powerful and magically enhancing. This book is about accepting the existence of these frameworks and approaching them differently. Perhaps that’s why it’s called Bending the Binary instead of Breaking the Binary.
Why it doesn’t work for me
The binary and polarity are human-created frameworks designed to help us organise and understand the world. They are not intrinsic to nature, the universe, or reality. Nature operates on spectrums, cycles, and networks far more complex than rigid polarities or binaries. While these concepts can be useful as symbolic tools, they are not universal truths.
Gender, similarly, is a social construct, constantly evolving alongside culture and society. The binary view of gender—and, by extension, gender polarity—has no inherent value in my practice. Lipp’s reliance on these frameworks feels outdated and overly rigid, especially when applied to a nonbinary world.
Final thoughts
I appreciate Deborah Lipp’s effort to tackle this challenging subject and open a conversation about the role of polarity in modern magical practices. However, the book’s lack of clarity, reliance on flawed assumptions, and inconsistent arguments make it a frustrating read. While it may resonate with those who hold polarity and binary thinking as central to their spirituality, it is unlikely to persuade readers who, like me, view these concepts as symbolic rather than fundamental.
Ultimately, Bending the Binary raises important questions but falls short of providing coherent answers. It is a book better suited for experienced practitioners who already understand these frameworks and wish to reinterpret them. Those looking to work outside the binary framework may find this book less relevant to their needs.
This is in my ‘to read’ pile and after reading your review, I’m looking forward to it a little less now. I have very high expectations of this text. I thought it might have been a little more revolutionary than this. Still….I’ll get to it soon enough.