Do you think that the meaning "neither fish nor meat" is some name for the dish? No, absolutely not. Rather, it is a certain category of people who do not differ in initiative and personal brightness. Nothing concrete can be said about them. Consider the expression in more detail.
Full version of the saying and its history
Almost all phraseological units are of extremely respectable age. It’s even interesting, our time will give something great and mighty, otherwise it seems that we only consume, use and offer nothing in return. Well, okay, let's leave the old man's muttering and move on to the topic.
It turns out that the phrase "neither fish nor meat" appeared in the 16th century, when Europe was shaken by religious wars. The full form of phraseology is: "neither fish nor meat, nor caftan nor cassock." Martin Luther, leader of the Reformation, criticized the Catholic Church's religious tenets and rejected its key role in mediation between God and man. The main idea of Luther was that a person is saved “only by faith”, he does not need any intermediaries in this. We can talk about the history and significance of the Reformation for a long time, but the most important thing is that it gave humanity a wonderful phraseology “neither fish nor meat”, the significance of which we are considering.
Value
In addition to key positions, some habits that were previously considered indestructible have apparently undergone changes. For example, Catholics did not allow themselves to eat meat in fasting, and Protestants allowed. Since then, people began to divide people into "meat" and "fish" ones, and those who did not want to take any position in this regard became subjects without clearly expressed preferences. Now we have safely forgotten the history of origin, but we remember the meaning of “neither fish nor meat”: this is a person swimming with the flow, not having any particular convictions, ambitions, or requests. Remember the movie "Garage" by Eldar Ryazanov? The episode was played by the character Karpukhin, who had a wonderful remark: "I am from the majority." So that's our anonymous hero.
The harm and benefits of neutrality
Facelessness has its advantages in conditions when the world has split into two camps. For example, supporting Luther or the Catholic Church is not a quarrel in which you must definitely choose a side. And when it comes to life in general, it is necessary to have a certain opinion, if it does not exist, all people without a certain position can share the fate of the losers or the winners.
But this is speaking about the crisis. In a usual measured life, neutrality also has its disadvantages and advantages. If a person is not known, not touched, then he is unlikely to be extreme, because in any situation he is not a competitor to those who want something strongly: get married, advance in service, earn a million. A man “neither fish nor meat” will not interfere with all these people: his movements of the soul and body of his neighbors are simply not interesting.
The negative side of this position is primarily associated with loneliness. Men and women love active, cheerful, positive people. And those who do not care, usually bypassed. In justification, I want to say that a person rarely chooses what to be. Usually the flow of life forms it almost spontaneously.