In the work to foster a more inclusive society, finding ways to build relationships, understanding, and respect across faiths, beliefs, and identities can be as complex as it is essential. So when the Kaufman Interfaith Institute invited me to co-convene multi-faith organizations and document insights from a gathering in summer of 2023, I couldn’t stop thinking about tensions between the fields of bridgebuilding and activism.
The dichotomy between pluralist bridgebuilders and social activists is an ongoing conversation in interfaith and democracy-building spaces. This tension—between those who champion bridging work alone and those who seek to prioritize activism—had been highlighted in April that year with the release of the statement on philanthropic Pluralism in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, prompting very public disagreement. I’d felt the tension in a different way myself when I had been building a bridging-oriented program at The Aspen Institute: the Religion & Society Program. Occasionally I’d get some side-eye for that work and more than once was referred to as King’s “white moderate” of his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in which he blames not racist extremists for a lack of progress, but the “white moderate who is more devoted to 'order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”
No bridger I’ve ever known, myself included, wants to be undermining justice, and it can be hard to hear that work you’re pouring yourself into to bridge divides may ultimately be harmful. But I couldn’t shake the gut feeling that bridging movements can also serve positive roles. That's because:
Despite the real tensions between bridgers and activists, I’d also seen many cases of breakthrough collaborations or combined strategies that mix or marry bridging and activism through my work.
The opportunity, therefore, to facilitate a diverse group of multifaith organizations and then research and write about them for Kaufman Interfaith Institute was a great chance to explore and understand the tensions, and the possibilities, more fully.
The outcome of that convening and research is a paper just published in The Foundation Review, in which I address this core dynamic. While this paper has been under review and going through the publication process, I’ve expanded on the findings in some other formats, including on my blog - read more here and here - and during a recent event with Braver Angels. I also spent some time exploring the downsides of bridging and contact strategies in my article for democracy takes. This article is now making the rounds in pro-democracy circles and – I hope – prompting some important conversations.
Now, after a long wait, I’m so thrilled the paper that started it all, is out. I hope you’ll read the whole piece, but if nerdy academic articles aren’t your thing, here are my two key arguments about fostering social change in a diverse democracy:
Bridging and Activism Need Each Other
Bridging and advocacy are essential approaches for a pluralistic society, yet both - when pursued on their own - come with limitations. Bridging projects can effectively reduce biases and help people engage across differences. However, they sometimes hinder social justice movements by overly focusing on mutual understanding at the expense of equity. In fact, certain kinds of bias reduction strategies make advantaged and disadvantaged folks less likely to perceive or act on injustice. This is a huge issue for bridgers – and I encourage bridging folks to at least read the sections explaining how this happens. Conversely, advocacy can effectively push for policy changes but often emphasizes immediate wins rather than long-term cultural shifts, occasionally generating backlash that overwhelms initial gains.
Each approach has limitations, and neither can stand alone; in a pluralistic society, both are necessary and interdependent.
2. Multifaith Organizations Embody Practices that Navigate This Dichotomy
The paper identifies six practices of multifaith organizations that allow them to avoid falling into the binary of “activism vs. bridgebuilding”: these organizations practice “dual identity” contact, tolerate disagreement, shatter typical binaries, manage shifting constellations of partners, build local relationships, and possess expansive networks. Because these groups consist of faith traditions that often diverge on various issues, they constantly navigate pluralism’s demands and can offer valuable insights into building resilience and understanding in a diverse society.
Multifaith organizations, therefore, serve as valuable partners and guides, especially for funders and initiatives aimed at creating or sustaining a pluralistic democracy. They manage conflicts, foster engagement, and have long-standing experience in fostering empathy across lines of difference, making them ideal allies for scaling impact and navigating conflicts in our increasingly pluralistic landscape.
Bringing These Insights to Broader Work
This research is not only relevant to leaders within faith-inspired circles but also to those in secular and pro-pluralism initiatives. Multifaith organizations, by nature, regularly navigate conflicts in values, traditions, and beliefs, and this accumulated knowledge can be vital to building resilient, pluralistic societies.
I’m excited to bring these findings to my work with clients and to explore ways to deepen the impact of bridgebuilding efforts. With the challenges and possibilities this paper uncovers, I look forward to working alongside others committed to fostering both connection and change across diverse beliefs and backgrounds.
Thanks to generous sponsors of The Foundation Review’s 15th anniversary issue, you can read and share the full article for free!
Comments