The Illusion of Neutrality

by Ron Kraybill

Is 'neutrality' ever a constructive goal in conflict? I believe the answer is no. Were I able, I would remove the word 'neutrality' from the English language, for it has caused much injury to the cause of peacemaking. It confuses many mediators with a false understanding of their tasks; it blocks many sincere leaders from acting on their own deeply held principles of justice; it damages the credibility of the enterprise of peacemaking in the larger community.

People who try to be 'neutral' do so, I believe, because they think that if they want to work for peace they have no alternative. There are alternatives and we shall propose several. But first, consider two objections to the concept of neutrality.

Problems with Neutrality
Neutrality is an illusion; there is no such thing as a detached or objective observer. Natural and social scientists have in recent years come to recognize this as a given. Even if I sit in a corner in complete silence while two people fight, I communicate assumptions or values which influence the situation, such as "screaming is acceptable" or "this conflict and the things being agreed upon here are of no concern to others," etc. Rather than pretend to have no values or be neutral, people seeking to be a constructive presence in any conflict should learn to be reflective about what values motivate them and be open about these values with others.

Another objection to neutrality is that, in the words of Fr. Albert Nolan of the Institute for Contextual Theology in Johannesburg, "it makes reconciliation an absolute principle that must be applied in all cases of conflict." Neutrality, says Nolan, assumes that all conflicts are based on misunderstandings, that blame lies equally on both sides, and that all that is needed is to bring the two parties together and the misunderstanding will be rectified. In truth, Nolan points out, these assumptions are wrong in some conflicts. Sometimes "one side is right and the other wrong, one side is being unjust and oppressive and the other is suffering injustice and oppression. In such a case, not taking sides would be quite wrong."

Alternatives to Neutrality
Rather than hiding our values, peacemakers can be explicit about them. After all, we are the ones who call for unusual responses from others. We, more than anyone else, need to be clear and articulate about what motivates us and what others must do if they are to participate in the peace we seek to support.

In a seminal 1974 essay, American conflict practitioners James Laue and Gerald Cormick suggested that any social intervention should be guided by core values of freedom, justice, and empowerment. Of these criteria, justice is the primary one, since freedom and empowerment are actually pathway values leading to the creation of justice. For Laue and Cormick, "the single ethical question that must be asked of every intervener in the community disputes at every decision-making point in the intervention is: Does the intervention contribute to the ability of relatively powerless individuals and groups in the situation to determine their own destinies to the greatest extent consistent with the common good?"

Thus intervenors must first analyze the conflict in its context and then choose an appropriate response. Laue and Cormick identify five roles commonly played by intervenors:

1. The activist works closely with the powerless or non-establishment party in a conflict. He or she is usually either a member of the non-establishment group or closely aligned with the group.

2. The advocate plays a similar role to the activist and promotes the interests of a particular side. But the advocate remains more detached, serving as an advisor or consultant to the group, rather than identifying with it personally.

3. Mediators "do not have their base in any of the disputing parties and thus have a more general, less party-parochial view of the conflict." The mediator is also "acceptable at some level of confidence to all of the disputing parties."

4. The researcher may be "a social scientist, a policy analyst, a media representative, or a trained lay observer, who provides an independent evaluation of a given conflict situation. The researched perceives the conflict in its broadest context and is able to empathize with all positions."

5. The enforcer brings formal coercive power to the conflict. The enforcer is often "a formal agency of social control in the larger system within which the conflict is set - the police or the courts - or perhaps& a funding agency or an arbitrator." Though elements of this role appear in many conflicts, one rarely sees it in pure form.

Advocacy as an Alternative to Neutrality Another alternative to neutrality begins by broadening the definition of advocacy and recognizing that we are advocates of something all of the time, whether we are conscious of it or not. The question is not if we are advocates, but rather of what. From this perspective we can identify at least four kinds of advocacy.

A party advocate takes the side of one party and pushes loyalty for its advantage. "My country/my party/my friends - right or wrong." An outcome advocate works for an outcome he or she deems desirable, without regard as to who happens to benefit from this outcome. A process advocate promotes neither party nor outcome, but rather a particular way of deciding things or getting things done. A values advocate champions concepts or principals: democracy, fair play, the rule of law, human rights, etc. Thus peacemakers can choose forms of advocacy that enable them to define a clear perspective without falling into the blind partisanship of party advocacy.

The Mediator as Process and Values Advocate Mediators should view themselves as passionate process advocates. As process advocates, we should be clear within ourselves and articulate in describing to others the nature of the process we facilitate. We should be prepared to walk away from any situation which does not support the values we stand for. Our commitment to justice, freedom, and empowerment will enable us to take a clear and explicit stand on a variety of principles regarding any process which we facilitate:

1. Conduct of Participants: Should respect the dignity and equality of all persons in the negotiations as well as those affected by the negotiations.


2. Negotiator mandates: Negotiators must hold a genuine mandate to negotiate on behalf of the people they claim to represent.


3. Access of constituencies to decision making: Final decision-making power must be in the hands of the people most affected by decisions taken at the mediation table, either directly or through legitimate representation.


4. Access of negotiators to constituencies: Negotiators must have free access to the people they are representing.


5. Power: Must be relatively equal if conflicts are to be genuinely resolved rather than merely temporarily suppressed. Mediators must acknowledge the realities of power and recognize that power is a relative and constantly changing phenomenon deriving from many sources. Mediators should analyze carefully the timing of their efforts so as to ensure relatively equal power. They should also recognize and support the necessary role of activists and advocates, and be ready to decline to mediate if power imbalances are too high.


6. Problem-solving approaches: Mediators should be articulate and persuasive in advocating processes of negotiation and decision making that shift the dynamics of interaction between the parties from simple positional power maneuvering (which only postpone real resolution) to genuine grappling with the legitimate needs of each side.


7. Information: All parties should have equal access to critical information.


8. Accountability: A mediator should hold all parties accountable: to other parties at the table in living up to agreements and in being honest about the extent to which they can make binding commitments; also to their own constituencies in accurately and competently representing constituency concerns and interests, and in keeping constituencies informed and appropriately involved in the decision-making process.

The challenge for all mature human beings, and peacemakers in particular, is to stand for something, to have opinions and goals, and to work constructively for their implementation. We are not neutral, but then what are we? Impartial, fair, principled, committed to the legitimate needs of all. Many words will do, but let us never accept a description that robs us of the heart of our humanity: our identity and our values.

Ron Kraybill was the Director of Training at the Centre for Intergroup Studies, University of Cape Town, when he wrote this article. He is currently Associate Professor in the Conflict Transformation Program at Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.

This article originally appeared in the November 1992 issue of Track Two magazine. Track Two is a quarterly publication of the Centre for Conflict Resolution, Rondebosch, South Africa.

Copyright 2004 Search for Common Ground