# Beyond the ‘It’: Mutuality, Maternal-Thinking, and the ‘She’ in Illich's thought 

**by Renee Uribe**

Ivan Illich’s critique of the church is founded on the distinction between the institutional church (“it”) and the mystical body of Christ (“She”). The “it” represents the impersonal, institutional, and potentially dehumanizing aspects of the church, while the "She" embodies the living, face-to-face community of Christ, rooted in genuine human connection. The Church embodies communities and forms of life that may exist outside the institutional church while still being part of Christ’s Mystical Body, a concept that can be applied across Christian denominations.[^1] Illich challenges the church for its attempts to mass-produce mercy, arguing that true compassion and resistance to evil can only be found within the Church and fostered through mutuality. This concept of mutuality, grounded in Illich's theology of the Incarnation, emphasizes a relationship founded on a freely chosen act of love. However, Illich acknowledges the complexities and nuances of such mutuality, as evidenced by his provocative statement about the church: “Let’s accept the ambiguity of being sons of a mother who is unworthy, but not one of us.”[^2] This raises crucial questions: if the “it” is not one of “us,” then who constitutes this “us” for Illich? How does this “us” manifest itself in Illich's thought and practice? I propose exploring the concept of "us" through a maternal-thinking lens to offer new insights into Illich's understanding of the church/Church and illuminate the path beyond the institutional “it.” 

## Mystery of Mutuality and Mystery of Evil

Cayley explains that Illich understands mystery not as a puzzle yet to be worked out but “as something that our thought, by its nature, cannot penetrate.”[^3] In the effort to shed light on Illich’s effort to go beyond the “it,” this essay attempts to circumscribe the mystery Illich confronted.

The “mystery of mutuality” is vital to define Illich’s “us” and is deeply rooted in his theology of the Incarnation. For Illich, the Incarnation exemplifies the mutuality between God and humanity, where God, through Christ, enters into a relationship with creation. This relationship, characterized by love and freedom, is the foundation for genuine human connection.[^4] Furthermore, the Incarnation embodies a sense of complementarity, a paradigm that Illich would explore throughout his life, perceiving the coexistence of seemingly opposing forces within a unified whole. Implied in the Incarnation is the arrival of God in the flesh, so that “we are led to discover God in one another.”[^5] This pursuit of discovering God in others fueled Illich's lifelong advocacy for mutuality, which he defined as a freely chosen act of love and friendship, where individuals establish “personal proportionality” when moved to turn toward one another.[^6] Although the nuances of his theological thought are beyond the scope of a short essay, some aspects of it can be recognized.

From the beginning of his priesthood, Illich emphasized the it/She distinction which he expressed later in terms of a philosophy of complementarity. Illich's distinction between the "it" and "She,” the institutional church and the mystical body of Christ, is like two sides of the same coin. It is Illich’s way of simplifying the complex theological construct of the bipartite body of Christ— The Church as "*De domini corpore bipartition.”* This concept is rooted in the writings of Fourth Century North African theologian Tyconius.[^7] Based primarily on the second letter to the Thessalonians 2:1-12, Tyconius proposed that the Church consists of two intertwined yet distinct realities: one belonging to God and the other to the devil. Illich, drawing on this tradition, saw the church/Church as simultaneously harboring both darkness and beauty, acknowledging the potential for corruption even within the holy. I suggest the parable of the weeds in the gospel of Matthew 13:24-43 as a depiction of this intertwined bipartite body of Christ. The kingdom of God, conceived as a farm, has both wheat and weeds growing side by side. And the farmer is directed to “let them grow together until the harvest.” Jesus explains that weeds are “the children of [the evil one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan),” whereas wheat is “the children of the [Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_heaven_\(Gospel_of_Matthew\)),” with the harvest occurring at “the end of the age.” Interpreting the parable as a call to tolerance within the Church or as an example of the bipartite body of Christ—similar to Tyconius' reading of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13—is uncommon in mainstream theology, but it resonates deeply with me.

Illich's thinking is not duality but the philosophy of complementarity. I understand it in this straightforward way: duality is an “either/or” but the philosophy of complementarity refers to a “both/and.” This reflects the inherent tension between the weeds and wheat, the ideal and the reality, the earthly and the divine—a creative tension that has resonated throughout Christian history. Tyconius' theology significantly influenced Augustine, who shaped much of Western theological thought. Even the late Pope Benedict XVI's renunciation was linked to his understanding of the bipartite body of Christ, a concept he began to explore in his early writings. Agamben further connects this theological thread to the writings of Illich, highlighting its enduring relevance.[^8]

Illich believed the Incarnation fundamentally transformed human relationships, introducing a new potential for both connection and rejection. This “expanded horizon” for love, exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan, brought with it the freedom to choose, but also the potential for betrayal. For Illich, sin was not a transgression of law, but a refusal of this felt call to love. In this way, a *mysterium iniquitatis* ("mystery of evil") is introduced alongside the Incarnation. This paradox fascinated Illich, highlighting the creative tension between the "mystery of mutuality" and the "mystery of evil." He saw the Church as a prime example of this tension, echoing Savonarola's view of it as a “nesting place for evil”[^9] and describing this corruption as *corruptio optimi pessima* (“corruption of the best is the worst.”)

Agamben further emphasizes this point, noting Illich’s viewpoint that the church has become a model for the modern state's “completely taking over humanity.”[^10] Agamben, with maternal imagery, emphasizes Illich's view that the church, “is the modern state in embryo.”[^11] Illich framework of complementarity helps explain this tension, recognizing the coexistence of opposing forces within the Church, and highlighting the challenge of pursuing mutuality within a system that seems to necessarily undermine it. Illich believes that the Western system in which we live and whose air we breathe is completely intermingled with the “it” of the institutional church.

## Mystery of Mutuality

To understand the “us” in Illich's framework, we must explore his definition and practice of mutuality. He often described this “mystery of mutuality” as “the mutuality of love, which is called friendship,” suggesting that “us” comprises those with whom he shared such bonds. Throughout his life, Illich championed the creation of spaces where individuals could gather, share meals, as well as engage in meaningful conversations around research. These spaces, reminiscent of maternal environments, fostered growth and mutuality, echoing the nurturing, protective, and defiant roles that mothers have historically played amidst social and political challenges. Illich's point of reference for these spaces was the early Christians, who formed communities based not on birthright but on shared beliefs and experiences.[^12] He admired their face-to-face relationships and their practice of *conspiratio*, reflecting a collective spirit akin to a mystical body. Examples of Illich's approach to creating conspiratorial spaces can be found in his communal gatherings where cooking and shared meals were central,[^13] and in his “living room consultations” at Penn State University, where in-depth discussions unfolded over several days. These instances highlight the maternal aspects of Illich's understanding of mutuality, emphasizing the creation of environments that nurture growth, connection, and resistance to institutional control.

## Illich's Mothers: Ellen ‘Maexie’ Illich (nee Regenstreif) and the Church.

Illich's understanding of the Church was deeply influenced by his personal experience. He described two mothers: his biological mother, Ellen ‘Maexie’ Illich (nee Regenstreif), and the Church. His commitment to religious communities seemed to replace his biological family. While his motivations for becoming a priest remain unclear, his mother's faith likely played a significant role in shaping his spirituality.

Many Christian traditions confuse the church as a “Holy Mother.” Many Christian denominations tend to sanctify their visible institutions. Illich’s distinction between “it” and “she” squarely challenges this traditional view. Applying maternal-thinking, we can see that just as a mother’s limitations are physical, emotional, and social, so also there is a “built-in” limitation to the Church, which reflects the inherent challenges of fostering genuine human connection in a complex world. Illich critiques the institutional church for its attempts to “mass produce mercy,” arguing that felt compassion can only be found in intimate and authentic relationships. Hence, "She" is comprised of those, the “us,” who engage in genuine mutuality and resist the dehumanizing tendencies of institutionalization.

## "It" is Not "Us": Defining the Boundaries of Mutuality

Does Illich’s definition of mutuality have boundaries? The following statement provides clues, “Let’s accept the ambiguity of being sons of a mother who is unworthy, but not one of us.”  It is found in the Jean-Marie Domenach interview from 1972:

>That I have my roots in the church makes it a mother, in a sense. We’re stuck with her for life, like you with your wife. And I also know from the Bible that she is a whore. And I wouldn’t be a Roman, a Roman Christian in the church that the Lord founded if I didn’t have the courage to identify myself as the son of a whore. . . Let’s accept the ambiguity of being sons of a mother who is unworthy, but not one of us. It helps clarify our attitude towards the institution.[^14]

While writing my doctoral dissertation on “transforming mutuality” using Illich’s text and practices, I struggled to understand what Illich had meant by “not one of us.” In view that it might be a translation mistake, I decided to write to David Cayley to ask him his opinion (August 22, 2022), “At the beginning of the statement, he connects the Church, as Domenech to his wife but then says that the Church is ‘NOT a part of us. Could he have said something else?”[^15]Cayley immediately replied (August 22, 2022), “I would discount ‘not one of us’ as nonsense…what he must have meant to say was something like: Let's accept the ambiguity of being sons of a mother who is unworthy but of which we are a part nonetheless.”[^16]

Reflecting on Cayley's response two years later, I disagree with his dismissal of Illich's statement as “nonsense” and his substituting “not one of us” with “of which we are a part.”  After re-watching the 1972 interview, I believe Illich's assertion that the institutional church is “not one of us” holds a deeper and fundamental significance. While acknowledging his rootedness in the Roman Catholic tradition and hence in the church, Illich vigorously distances himself from it. The deep significance of complementarity in Illich is found in the stance he took towards the mutuality between the church and the Church. He denigrates what he cannot disavow, in the cause of what he defends but dares not describe.

The intermingling of it/She can be confusing, but Illich emphasizes that “we” who embrace mutuality stand with the “She” against the “it”, resisting the dehumanizing forces and corruption that can arise within institutions. He actively created spaces of resistance "beyond the walls" of established institutions, fostering genuine human connection and challenging the status quo. Just as in maternal-thinking with its focus on nurturing, preserving life, and challenging oppressive structures, there are limitations or boundaries to Illich's “us.” These boundaries define the size and composition of the community, determining who is a part of it. Boundaries are essential for healthy and authentic relationships. The “it” (the institutional Church and the age of systems) often oversteps these boundaries, creating an artificial and lifeless environment. True mutuality, on the other hand, involves recognizing and respecting the limits of each individual or group, allowing for a more authentic and fulfilling connection.

Raised in the Stone-Campbell Movement, I have grappled with the tension between the institutional aspects versus the lived experience of faith. My critiques, culminating in a 300-page dissertation, stem from this tension. Yet, I continue to cherish the legacy of faith and love for God passed down through generations linked by the Church. Like Illich, I have found that focusing on the "She" fosters a resilient spirituality that transcends denominational boundaries. This understanding has been further deepened through the lens of maternal-thinking. By recognizing the nurturing, protective, and defiant qualities associated with motherhood, I have gained a greater appreciation for how "She" can provide a safe haven and a source of resistance against the oppressive forces of “it.”

## Maternal-Thinking

 	Historically, mothers have often resisted and created spaces to group people to resist oppressive power structures, including those within the church. This resistance, exemplified by movements such as the Argentine *Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo*, underscores the maternal role in challenging state oppression.

Maternal-thinking offers a unique perspective to shed light on Illich's “mystery of mutuality.” Sara Ruddick introduced "maternal thinking" to describe three values or intellectual capacities that may arise from the everyday work of caring for children. First, the need to protect children fosters the value of “holding”—keeping them safe while acknowledging the limits of control. Second, nurturing a child’s development cultivates an ability to navigate complex, unpredictable change. Finally, preparing children for social and moral life requires openness to their potential, including their differences from the caregiver and community. Together, these capacities create a framework for peace, emphasizing care, understanding, and reconciliation.[^17]

Furthermore, in her concept of the maternal gift economy, Vaughan challenges the dominant market exchange paradigm by emphasizing the values of unconditional giving, nurturing, and relationality. She introduces the term *homo donans* to suggest that humans are not primarily defined by wisdom (*homo sapiens*) or economic exchange (*homo economicus*), but by their fundamental nature as gift-givers—a reality distorted by the practices of exchange, money, and markets. Drawing from her own experience as a mother, Vaughan highlights the inherent gift-giving nature of language and caregiving, defining a true gift as one that meets a need. She underscores the importance of mothering—through parenting, care, or nurture—in shaping both language and the gift paradigm at personal and societal levels.[^18] This bold shift in thinking, centered on maternal-thinking, aligns with Illich’s ideas on mutual limitation and echoes his critique of growth-oriented societies.

Maternal thinking offers a unique lens through which to understand the concept of complementarity, as exemplified by the interconnectedness of a mother and soon-to-be-born child. This biological relationship, where two beings are both separate and united, resonates with the theological concept of the “already but not yet” kingdom of God. This notion of a future reality that is present in seed form is a fundamental building block of Illich's theological and philosophical thinking.

## Illich's Complementarity and the "It" vs. "She" Dynamic

Illich's concept of complementarity, akin to Nicolas of Cusa's “coincidence of opposites,” is central to his thought. Just as Newton's third law describes forces existing in equal and opposite pairs, so too does Illich recognize the interconnectedness of seemingly opposing forces. This perspective, as explained by Cayley, rests on three principles: multiple perspectives, acknowledgment of shadow aspects, and striving for balance.[^19] These principles illuminate Illich's understanding of the dynamic between and within the church/Church. First, the necessity of multiple perspectives underscores the importance of creating spaces for genuine dialogue and collaboration. Second, acknowledging the “shadow” aspects inherent in individuals and institutions allows for a more honest and nuanced engagement. Finally, the concept of balance is crucial for navigating the inherent conflict between the “it” and the “She.”

In our time, Illich's thinking can guide us to understand the “age of systems.” Illich's theology offers a deep level of mediation on the “mystery of evil” implicit in the Incarnation. For Illich, “the mystery of evil” hatches from relying on modern institutions to “love” as if they were social machines that produce mercy, instead of seeking others face-to-face for human connection. Illich views many Western institutions as “mercy-producing” institutions: schools and healthcare. In my research, I found his logic of the “ages of systems” linked with the nondenominational church, in the category I coined “religious branded organization.” In these Christian groups, as in the “it” of Illich, the followers are invited to trust in their institution rather than seeking genuine human connection. My own experience with such an organization led me to conclude, using maternal-thinking, that it was a “faceless, bodiless, wombless, and motherless system.”[^20]

Illich's advocacy for mutual dependence and mutual limitation aligns with his view of mutuality and creating spaces for it. He uses shocking maternal imagery, “wombless world” and “plastic womb,” to describe the artificial and lifeless nature of the institutional church and the systems it has created. These words reflect the artificial, bodiless world of the “it,” which characterizes the “age of systems” we currently inhabit.

## Us Against It: The Distinction of Mutuality

At the core of Illich's provocative distinction between “us” and “it,” encapsulated in his assertion that the Church is “not one of us,” is the insight that while institutional authorities promise safety and order, they can only do so by alienating individuals from the authentic relational dynamics that mutuality seeks to cultivate.

Illich's “not one of us” serves also as a place of resistance to evil. It serves as a rallying call for those disillusioned by institutional failures, inviting a reclamation of faith and community that transcends bureaucratic limitations. For Illich, this does not necessitate abandoning the institutional church altogether but rather calls for a transformative engagement that prioritizes mutual relationships over institutional loyalty. By fostering a collective identity grounded in love and respect for one another, “we” emerge as a community to challenge the corrosive effects of “it.” This dynamic encourages a reimagining of the Church, not as an institution defined by its power but as a living embodiment of Christ’s message of mutuality, capable of confronting the evils that arise from institutionalization.

## Illich’s Legacy: Spaces Created for Mutuality

Illich’s concept of mutuality is inherently radical—it challenges not only the institutional Church but also the broader social order, which I describe as “a system broken beyond repair.” By prioritizing face-to-face relationships over institutional allegiance, mutuality serves as a quiet yet profound act of resistance. In my own experiences with Gustavo Esteva at Uni-Tierra, I saw firsthand how mutuality becomes a form of liberation, where genuine community and learning can emerge outside the constraints of both church and State.[^21]  Firsthand experiences at Uni-Tierra and e-Bosch, a community gathering in Stellenbosch, South Africa,[^22] further illustrate the transformative power of such spaces in fostering connection, understanding, and learning across diverse backgrounds. In these places and others, I have experienced the emphasis on mutuality, shared meals, and deep conversations that echo Illich’s call for authentic relationships rooted in face-to-face connection. I discovered the ineradicable part that individuals play in fostering mutuality; each person’s active participation is vital for sustaining these relationships. However, this journey is not without challenges, as institutional resistance and societal pressures often threaten to undermine these genuine connections. To navigate these obstacles, it is essential to remain committed to Illich's vision, encouraging a personal and collective responsibility to create and nurture spaces of mutuality that resonate with love and understanding.

## Concluding Thoughts

In exploring Illich's intricate tapestry of thought, we have ventured beyond the confines of the institutional church, outlining his distinction between it/She. We have delved into the heart of mutuality and its profound implications for human connection and resistance. We reviewed the basic theological framework on which his thinking is rooted: Incarnation, Bipartite Christ, and *conspiratio*.

Through the lens of maternal thinking, we have illuminated the nuanced boundaries of Illich's "us," recognizing the transformative power of genuine relationships and the enduring legacy of spaces created for authentic encounters. As we navigate the complexities of our modern age, may we draw inspiration from Illich's vision, embracing the “She” and resisting the “it,” with the dynamics of complementarity. We draw from the well of resilient spirituality that transcends institutional limitations and empowers us to create a world where mutuality flourishes, and the divine spark within each of us is ignited.

Illich initiative reflects a life lived in faith beyond institutional boundaries. And embodying Illich's understanding of genuine community as one that prioritizes relationships over institutional affiliation. By embracing a vision that allows for the flourishing of mutuality and human connection, Illich invites us to continue exploring his radical insights in our personal and communal contexts, where “we” united by “her” can thrive outside of “it.”

This poetic summary encapsulates the essence of Illich's going beyond the “it” as an active, ongoing process of creating spaces for genuine human connection amidst the challenges and brokenness of the dominant social order. The imagery of walking together through a broken system conveys a sense of both resilience and hope, emphasizing the transformative power of mutual relationships and the importance of collective action.

Mutuality  
Is  
Creating Spaces  
While  
Walking Together  
Through  
A System Broken Beyond Repair.[^23]

[^1]:   “It is important to be clear about the use of the words church or Church (capital C) throughout the text. When I use church (it), I mean the institution, which embraces the bureaucracy, the administration, and the visible apparatus of the Catholic tradition. When I use Church (She), I mean the Mystical Body of Christ, not always visible nor necessarily under the wings of the church. By making such distinction I am not saying that the Catholic church is not within the Mystical Body of Christ, which I call Church, of which Christ is the head (see St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, his first and second letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Colossians). Rather, I use Church to embrace communities and forms-of-life not necessarily under the approval or recognition of the church to avoid narrowing the Mystical Body to one institution. If the analysis of this essay was one concerning the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church or the churches of Christ, I would follow the same method of differentiation between the church ‘it’ and the Church ‘She.’ The distinction, not the way I apply it, between the church ‘it’ and the Church ‘She’ can also be seen in Ivan Illich, *The Powerless Church* (2018).” Neto Leao, “Vernacular Forms-of-living: Thinking After Ivan Illich,” PhD diss. (Universidad Estatal De Campinas, 2022), 33\.

[^2]:  Tomasz Goetel, IVAN ILLICH – (English Subtitles) Un Certain Regard – A 1972 Interview. \[YouTube Video\], 2020\. 

[^3]:  Ivan Illich, *The North* Rivers of the Future*:The Testament of Ivan Illich,* as told to David Cayley (Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2005), 239\. 

[^4]:  Illich and the “mutuality of love”: “There is no other way, in my opinion, to explain the way which St. Thomas Aquinas unfolds the notion of contingency. . .. except as a digestion and penetration of Gospel truths, truths about the Incarnation, the embodiment, the enfleshment, and the mutuality of love.” Illich, *Rivers,* 69\.

[^5]:  Illich, *Rivers* 176\.

[^6]:  Reflecting on the parable of the Samaritan in Luke's account, Cayley suggests, “‘Who is my neighbor?’ He \[Illich\] answers, ‘He to whom you as a free human being establish your personal proportionality by turning to him in love and inviting him to the mutuality of love which is usually called friendship.” David Cayley, *Ivan Illich:* *An Intellectual Journey* (University Park, PA: The University of Penn. Press), 383\. 

[^7]:  A highly original and independent layman, Tyconius criticized the core beliefs of his own Donatist group, which led to him to incur its censure and be condemned (380 CE). His major work, *Liber Regularum*, presented seven principles for interpreting the Bible, which were later used by Augustine in *De Doctrian Christiana.* E.A. Livingstone. *The Concise Dictionary of the Christian* *Church* (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 590\.

[^8]:  Giorgio Agamben, *The Mystery of Evil: Benedict XVI and the End of Days*. Translated by A. Kotsko (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017), 11\. Also see Cayley, *Intellectual Journey* , 63-4.

[^9]:  Illich, *Rivers*, 61\.

[^10]:  Agamben, *The Mystery of Evil*, 10-11.

[^11]:  Cayley, *Intellectual Journey*, 380\.

[^12]:  Illich, *Rivers*, 33\.

[^13]:  Samar Farage, “Remembering ‘Illich’s Convivium,” *Conspiratio* (Fall 2021), 136–45.

[^14]:  Tomasz Goetel, IVAN ILLICH – (English Subtitles) Un Certain Regard – A 1972 Interview. \[YouTube Video\], 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L\_ByKXCr9TA

[^15]: *"I use this quote below, using the English subtitles on the video. I have a hard time thinking that Illich stated, being sons of a mother who is unworthy but not one of us" Could it be a wrong translation? Could he have said something else? My basic French cannot pick up on this. At the beginning of the statement, he connects the Church, as Domenech with this wife but then to say that the Church is "NOT a part of us." This might be what he said but it is not consistent with many other things he said. It is tough using the word church, as it is used both for the mystical aspect and the institutional aspect. Any thoughts on this quote?"*

[^16]:  *"I haven't been back to the Domenach interview, where my halting French probably wouldn’t be much more help than yours anyway, but I would discount ‘not one of us’ as nonsense \- whether as mistranslation or slip of the tongue it doesn't make any sense \- not one of whom? Ivan more than once described the Church as mother and whore, so this is reliable, and what he must have meant to say was something like: Let's accept the ambiguity of being sons of a mother who is unworthy but of which we are a part, nonetheless. His great reference on this point, as you probably know, was von Balthasar's essay ‘Casta Meretrix,’ and he mentions in ‘How shall we pass on Christianity?’ – reprinted in The Powerless Church – that he ‘got into trouble’ – I think he says – when he had this essay translate"*

[^17]:  Sara Ruddick, *Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace* (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1995).

[^18]:  Genevieve Vaughan, *For a Maternal Gift Economy* (Milan, IT: VandA.ePublishing, 2015).

[^19]: #  David Cayley, “Part Moon, Part Travelling Salesman: Complementary in the Thought of Ivan Illich,” *\[Online\] Davidcayley.com* ([November 7, 2014](https://www.davidcayley.com/blog/2014/11/7/part-moon-part-travelling-salesman-complementarity-in-the-thought-of-ivan-illich)).

[^20]:  Renee Rheinbolt-Uribe, “Transforming Mutuality in a Theology of Mission*,”* PhD Diss. (Stellenbosch University, 2023), 214\.

[^21]:  Insights from visiting and participating in an interview with Gustavo Esteva on November 14, 2019, Universidad de la Tierra, Oaxaca, México.

[^22]:  The name of the group is e’Bosch, with “e” standing for “erfenis” in Afrikaans. In English, it would be “h’Bosch” meaning “heritage Stellenbosch.” h’Bosch is a place where all the communities in and around Stellenbosch come together to share their heritage and perspectives, fostering mutual understanding, and developing common ground.

[^23]:  Rheinbolt-Uribe, *Transforming Mutuality*, 250\.