The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion
BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.
Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter.
|All of these speakers believe that neutrality is, in many ways, a myth. Either it is not possible, or it is undesirable, or it is unnecessary for successful intervention and/or conflict transformation.
|Helen Chauncey says intervenors should not be neutral when it comes to identity issues, rather they should be bi-partisan.|
|Carolyn Stephenson says that both escalation (done by partisans) and de-escalation (often aided by neutrals) are need to resolve conflicts.|
|Jannie Botes reflects on whether journalists can or should be "neutral" when reporting on humanitarian crises or atrocities.|
|Richard Salem discusses why mediator often cannot be neutral, but rather, must be advocates for justice.|
|Helen Chauncey observes much could be learned if different types of intervenors would learn from each other.|
|Peter Coleman says that neturality is a myth.|
|William Ury explains how Nelson Mandela, who was clearly partisan, not neutral, was still a consummate third sider.|
|Wallace Warfield explains how he works with the parties to help them clarify their issues.|
|Community Relations Service Mediator Silke Hansen describes how it helps to level the playing field by helping community groups prepare for mediation.|