PAVE Training Module 5

Welcome to Module 5 of the Preventing and Addressing Violent Extremism (PAVE) project on bridging partnerships with faith-based actors and institutions in preventing and/or countering violent extremism and supporting community resilience in your context. In this module, we are examining the PAVE research findings on interactions between state and religious institutions in the Western Balkans and MENA regions and why it is critical to support and partner with faith-based actors and institutions to prevent and counter violent extremism. This module will also examine technical tools that faith actors and their community partners can utilize to address violent extremism and bolster community resilience, including the role of nonviolent communication and intra and interfaith dialogue.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Total Training: 4 hours

Sessions in Module 5 

Session 1: The Important Role of Faith Actors and Faith-based Institutions in P/CVE Work

Session 2: Building Community Resilience Through Depolarization

Session 3: Utilizing Nonviolent Communication Skills to P/CVE

Session 4: Using Intra and Interfaith Dialogue to P/CVE

PAVE has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 870769.

PAVE Publications

Published by the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. April 2023.

This publication is part of WP7 of the PAVE project, led by Finn Church Aid (FCA) / the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers.

Authors: Jessica Roland and Sarah Tyler

Design: Triss Yap, Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers

A special thanks to those who helped to refine and support the development of this training module, including: Milla Perukangas, Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, Jason Yabal, Mohamed Abu Zaid, Maja Halilovic-Pastouvic, Lara Azzam, Tarja Mankkinen, Miriam Attias, Emina Frljak, Sarah Oliver, Professor Mohamed Abu Nimer, Dafina Bytyqi, Zlatko Apostoloski, Zelda Cossa, Sister Zeph, Ahmed Windi, Lantana Bako Abdullahi, James Movel Wuye, and Muhammad Nuruddeen Lemu.

The authors are solely responsible for its content, it does not represent the opinion of the European Commission and the Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.

To cite: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. Training Module 5: Building Partnerships with Faith-Based Actors and Institutions in Preventing and/or Countering Violent Extremism and Supporting Community Resilience. 2023. PAVE Project Publications.

Objective: In this first session, our objective will be to explore and understand the important role of faith actors and institutions in preventing and countering violent extremism.

Expected Results: The expected results of this first session will be that participants have an introductory understanding of the role of faith leaders in preventing and countering violent extremism and why it is critical to partner together to address violent extremism. Participants will have an opportunity to start opening up and reflecting on impacts that they have seen within their own contexts by faith actors and institutions.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session 1: 30 minutes

Agenda for Session 1

-What is the Role of Faith Actors in P/CVE and Supporting Community Resilience?

-Why Should Faith Leaders Participate Within These Efforts?

-How Have and Should Faith Actors Participate Within These Efforts?

Photo Source: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. https://www.peacemakersnetwork.org.

With so many individuals from around the world associating themselves with faith communities, faith actors are in an important position to be able to provide a place of guidance in times of crisis for many, as social conveners and mobilizers. Therefore, it is important to engage all actors, including faith actors with relevant knowledge and resources for prevention.

But why is engaging faith actors in P/CVE so critical?

Source: The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers. “Introduction to the Peacemakers Network.” 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c637x5yaxw.

Photo Source: UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. “Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes.” https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Plan_of_Action_Religious_Prevent_Incite.pdf.

Faith actors have and will continue to play an important role within P/CVE efforts. For example, the Rabat Plan of Action recommends that religious leaders refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may incite violence, hostility or discrimination and also notes that faith actors have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech. The UN Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes, also further focuses on the critical role that faith actors play in preventing violence and atrocity crimes. 

Faith actors also utilize many different unique tools and techniques within P/CVE efforts, a few of which you will learn about later on within this training module.

Here are a few examples:

• Faith actors continue to work in collaboration with policymakers, security authorities –including prisons, and civil society within P/CVE efforts.
• Faith actors create systems to support and uplift spiritual and cultural life, including through sports, music, and art.
• Faith actors offer to help individuals or groups with reconciliation.
• Faith actors can play a clear resilience role by being at the forefront of non-violent protests and publicly rejecting the use of violence by their own followers.
• Faith actors can provide critical support in promoting alternative or counter-narratives to help stifle radicalization.
• Faith actors can utilize interfaith dialogue, or offer constructive, cooperative and positive exchanges between people of different faiths or religious traditions and/or spiritual or humanistic beliefs. It can happen both at an interpersonal and institutional level and from local to international levels.

Numerous efforts, including policy papers and policy-oriented symposia, have over the past few years acknowledged that the faith-based sector should be involved at all levels in efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism. Internationally, policymakers are targeting portions of their P/CVE strategy to directly work with religious partners, convening gatherings with various stakeholders to better understand whom to engage and how. On a national level, governments are considering the role of religion in various components of violent extremism and, in varying degrees and levels of effectiveness, recognizing that the faith-based sector can have positive roles in P/CVE efforts, especially on a local level. But for policymakers and government and security actors to work effectively with religious actors, they must engage carefully and appreciate their unique, sometimes complex roles within their communities.

P/CVE policy, internationally and domestically, has tended to instrumentalize faith actors—if they are referenced in a positive, collaborative way at all. For example, a government initiative may seek moderate religious leaders to offer counter-narratives to violent interpretations of religious scripture, often offering to support the religious leader or organization in various ways, including financially or through skills-based training.

Instrumentalizing faith actors is counterproductive at best, and dangerous (even potentially life threatening) at worst in not being seen as neutral or trusted by their communities, given the complex positionality of many faith actors in their communities and societies. Political and financial linkages can further threaten a faith actor’s position and role within his or her community. Another harmful example is when security officials call on faith leaders to provide surveillance and report any signs of radicalization among their community members, as has been happening around the world. When faith leaders comply, however, they risk again, being perceived as agents of the government and as no longer credible in their community. Engagement with faith actors must be done carefully, respectfully, and inclusively, and include a recognition that the same approach cannot be effective in every setting.

Source: USIP. “Faith and Fragile States First Panel: Religious Engagement in Countering Violent Extremism.” 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83CGIgITns.

Hear from Sheikh Mohamed Abu Zaid, Advisory Board Member for the PAVE Project, on the important role of faith actors within P/CVE work and supporting community resilience.

Source: PAVE Project. 'Sheikh Mohamed Abu Zaid: Role of Faith Actors in P/CVE and Community Resilience.' 2023. https://youtu.be/Xe5crFf3YWA.

During the PAVE project, it was also commonly noted across all focus groups and survey responses that faith actors have significant influence over their local communities and thus can contribute to both resilience and vulnerability factors to P/CVE-related efforts. However, there remains a lack of understanding as to the exact role faith actors might play in these efforts. Below are factors of vulnerability identified by the PAVE project related to faith actors and institutions.

Findings Around Vulnerability

• Faith actors – organizations, clergy, and leaders – play a role in upholding group identities that oftentimes are defined in hostility to an opposite ‘Other’. Religion is often not seen as an inherent problem, but rather it is the way in which religious resources are instrumentalized for political purposes which is perceived to be the driving force behind violent extremism. Political actors use and exploit religious sentiments, frameworks, and images in order to mobilize support for their political programs.
• Intrafaith and interfaith dialogue is not prioritized among religious communities.
• Religions cut across state borders. Religious identities are fundamentally transnational identities that create ties between co-religionists of different faith traditions. These can, and have been, exploited to serve the purposes of those propagating religious extremism.
• Many formal religious institutions operate dysfunctionally and informal religious institutions are competing for legitimacy.
• There is a lack of representation of women in the decision-making processes within formal religious institutions. In religious institutions, women are involved in affairs that concern primarily women. 
• The relationship between the economy of the state and religious institutions when religious institutions rely on state funding or donations from citizens. 
• Lack of funds for faith actors and institutions for P/CVE programming efforts.

While there are shortcomings in engaging faith actors and institutions, the PAVE project found many factors of resilience in engaging them as equally important partners. Below are actors of resilience identified by the PAVE project related to faith actors and institutions.

• The promotion of core values by faith actors, including their commitments of peace, dignity, and respect and being able to reach out to a wide constituency. For example, one community in Lebanon, whose faith leader promoted peace and dignity by allowing Syrian refugees to be buried in their town, unlike other communities. 
• The leadership factor of faith leaders on any issue is a resilience factor. 
• Social bonding within communities and social rapprochement between communities play a key role in building community resilience. For example, in Serbia religious communities traditionally show tolerance and respect for each other and often adopt a common position towards the state. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Interreligious Council is another example of this. 
• Faith actors who openly condemn acts of violence and intolerance. In Serbia, religious leaders increased community resilience by pushing back against attempts of radicalization, condemning openly intolerance and acts of violence. 
• The ability of informal grassroots religious institutions to mediate between armed groups and the government to de-escalate violence. For example, in the town of Arsal, the Association of Muslim Scholars took a lead in dialogue between the Lebanese Army and violent extremist groups.
• The role faith actors play in unauthorizing or delegitimizing armed groups or armed group leaders. For example, the Iraqi Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako publicly dissociated the church from the PMF’s Babylon Brigade.
• In Tunisia, the unification of Islamic knowledge creation in a respected and recognized institution, such as al-Zaytouna University, was noted as an element of resilience against violent extremism, as it illustrates how a serious academic institution can have legitimacy in the religious community.
• Unfortunately, religious actors and communities have not contributed to factors of resilience in all contexts. In Lebanon, the religious institutions have to some extent served as a constraining factor when inter-religious ties have been strained.

• Al-Baalbaky, Rudayna, Faiza Ayed,  Juline Beaujouan, Zouheir Ben Jannet, Sadok Damak, Hmida Ennaifer, Josep García Coll, Samiha Hamdi, Marie Kortam, Hassan Laaguir, Amjed Rasheed, Fethi Rekik, Javier Ruipérez Canales, Mohammed Sharqawi, and Maher Zoghlami. ‘’Working Paper 4: Interactions between States and Religious Institutions in the MENA Region.’’ PAVE Consortium. March, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.2_publication_layout.pdf.

• KAICIID. ‘’Prevention and Response: The Contribution of Religious Leaders to Counteracting Violent Extremism and Promoting Social Solidarity in Europe.’’ December 1, 2020. https://www.kaiciid.org/dialogue-knowledge-hub/webinars/prevention-and-response-contribution-religious-leaders-counteracting.

• Kortam, Marie. ‘’Interactions between State and Religious Institutions in the Balkans and MENA region: Synthesis Report.’’ PAVE Consortium. May, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.3_publication_layout.pdf.

• Mandaville, Peter and Melissa Nozell. ‘’Special Report: Engaging Religion and Religious Actors in Countering Violent Extremism.’’ USIP. August, 2017. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR413-Engaging-Religion-and-Religious-Actors-in-Countering-Violent-Extremism.pdf.

• OHCHR. ‘’Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred.’’ January 11, 2013. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf.

• PaRD. “Partnering with Local Faith Actors to Support Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” 2019. https://live-peacemakersnetwork.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pard_sdg16_scoping_study_01_0-1.pdf.

• Pastuovic, Maja Halilovic, Goran Tepšić, Nemanja Džuverović, Sead Turcalo, Jelena Brkić-Šmigoc, Mirza Smajić, Veldin Kadić, Muamer Hirkić and Gillian Wylie. ‘’Working paper 3: Interactions between States and Religious Institutions in the Balkans.’’ PAVE Consortium. March, 2022. https://pave-project.eu/publications/PAVE_870769_D4.1_publication_layout.pdf.

• RAN. ‘’Conclusion Paper: P/CVE Work with Religious Communities and Faith-Based Organizations.’’ November 18, 2021. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-new/publications/ran-western-balkans-pcve-work-religious-communities-and-faith-based-organisations-skopje-21-22_sl.

• UN OSAPG. ‘’Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes.’’ https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Plan_of_Action_Religious_Prevent_Incite.pdf.

Objective: In this second session, our objective will be to build an understanding on what polarization is, how it impacts local communities and what strategies local actors can use to identify, diagnose and address polarization, discourse and division.

Expected Results: The expected results of this second session will be that participants will understand how to address polarization to build social cohesion and resilience.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session: 1.5 hours

Agenda for Session 2

• What is Polarization?

• How Does Polarization Impact Local Communities?

• Strategies to Depolarize Local Discourse and Build Social Cohesion

• Polarization Indicator Toolkit (BRaVE Project)

• Diagnosing Polarization Through Local Audits (Bridge Project)

• The Role of Local and Regional Authorities in Addressing Polarization

Photo Source: Chesterfield, Alex and Kate Coombs. “To Fight Polarization, Ask, “How Does that Policy Work?” November 25, 2019. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/to-fight-polarization-ask-how-does-that-policy-work/.

Polarization is defined as, “a growing fragmentation of society into antagonistic collectives perceived as opponents in existential questions over a common future.” Polarization involves a process of sharpening differences between groups in society that can result in and from increased tensions. These tensions can result from social, political and economic influences. In highly divided and fragmented societies, groups or individuals that perceive themselves as marginalized or their identity as being threatened are more susceptible to being attracted by negative narratives about the ‘other’ group spread by polarizing actors, so-called ‘pushers’ of polarization. These polarizing narratives amplify differences, fuel hostility between groups and deny the existence of any unified group or shared narratives. Hostility towards other groups, ‘us-and-them’ thinking and the neglect of a common ground or shared values within society are features that are common to both the phenomena of polarization and of radicalization towards violent extremism.

The broader concept of polarization was initially developed to refer to and understand the unequal distribution of income – or socio-economic polarization. From a socio-economic perspective, this was seen as ‘the widening of the gap between specific groups of people in terms of their economic or social circumstances and opportunities.’ Polarization is, in a socio-economic context, initially used to understand growing income inequality – the widening  gap between rich and poor – or occupation – the expansion of jobs at the top and bottom of hierarchies – within economically advanced countries, and the subsequent impact this had on the middle classes. However, socio-economic polarization has since been expanded to include not just widening economic disparity but to include a variety of social and racial inequalities, and the impact this has on cohesion.

Political polarization is one of the most established and discussed indicators of party systems, with a canon of research becoming established on the polarization of parties or voting patterns. This has become increasingly relevant with the rise of right-wing populist parties and the fracturing of more orthodox political practices and landscapes in the last decade. The polarization of voters has been shown to create governmental instability, legislative deadlock, and the rise of political extremism. Such political polarization can be seen in the extent to which the platforms of competing parties are opposed, the level of party ideological homogeneity and the level of dislike expressed towards other parties. Indicators of political polarization on a national level have also been identified, including the number of extremist parties, their ideological focus and the percentage of their vote-share. Such a political focus on polarization represents the ideological hostility within a multi-party system, and the extent to which this becomes reflected in voting patterns and behavior. The marginalization of certain groups and the lack of representation or participation of all citizens in the democratic process can also be driving factors of polarization.

This has led to new discussions on the societal dangers of polarization and its role in enabling violence. Concerns have been raised over the rise of the far right – particularly the media-savvy ‘Alt-Right’ and ‘Alt-Light’ movements – as to the nature and credibility of the threat they post to democratic norms, structures and consensus-building. Such polarization has laid bare the fault lines of contemporary societies – between conservative and progressive, old and young, urban and rural areas, and those who have and haven’t been able to access higher levels of education. Such articulations of polarization – the exacerbation of political, social and cultural cleavages and inequalities – have created a context in which formations of so-called ‘violent extremism’ can and have begun to co-exist.

Hear from Maja Halilovic Pastuovic, PAVE Partner from Trinity College Dublin on how polarization impacts local communities.  

Source: PAVE Project. 'Maja Halilovic Pastuovic: How Polarization Impacts Local Communities.' 2023. https://youtu.be/8qR_oNVw9N0.

Many communities across the globe have become increasingly polarized in recent years due to new trends in identity and cultural politics, financial crises and political instability, the weaponization of crises by malicious political actors and the rise of irregular forms of media and social media. As a result, local communities are impacted in multi-faceted ways.

New trends of polarization around identity and cultural politics have been bringing forward feelings of exclusion and hostility. Articulations of identity that failed to transcend narrow, national or regional conceptualizations are understood as conducive to polarization, with such identities exclusionary by design, hostile to alternative cultural or faith communities, and framed as in direct competition with, and threatened by, coexistence with other identities. Feelings of hostility towards outgroups are also bound up with feelings of perceived injustices, victimhood and humiliation – powerful narratives of polarization and means of maintaining attachment to extremist groups. 

One of the central issues surrounding the rise of the far-right is the rise of an exclusionary identity. These present national identity as bound up with race or racial characteristics, as well as exceptionalizing certain traits or beliefs as being particularly or exclusively linked to certain nationalities (and not to others). This may delegitimize the existence of opposing opinions and minority communities, creating an inherent hostility against those seen as challenging national or majority supremacy. As a result, this leads to discrimination. The result fosters grievances of inequality around education and socio-economic status. This type of polarization further sows community division and legitimizes racism. Historical factors account for national historical and political trends, particularly how minority communities and political groups have been framed and treated by majority and governing groups. Politically disenfranchised individuals and groups often feel powerless and resentful of their lack of agency in remediating social disadvantage. In such situations, group violence becomes a more attractive means of redressing perceived inequalities. The laws protecting minority groups also impact levels of polarization, as states with limited or less consistently enforced hate crime and minority rights legislation are more likely to legitimize racism and community division. 

Exclusion based on identity thus also leads to the physical and spiritual segregation of family and community structures, including faith structures, through being segregated from the ‘demonizing of the other.’ Individuals become less empathetic of others and more stressed from the rise in violence and hate speech, which has a further impact on individual and community physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. Individuals also feel a pressure to conform within their groups. Polarization does not just manifest as intergroup conflict but changes the dynamics within groups, as people feel more pressure to conform in their beliefs and actions, which makes internal dissent and diversity less likely.

For example, in Central and Eastern Europe lingering articulations of national-socialist Antisemitism have been revived within localized grassroots movements, as seen in neo-Nazi marches and the recent violent attack at a synagogue in Halle. However, there has also been a rise in more covert forms of Anti-Semitism, as right-wing politicians in Hungary and Poland give credence to conspiracies and campaigns. Such racism has also sometimes seen populist right parties attempting to appeal directly to Jewish voters, playing the card of concern about Islamist violence or attempting to shape a new enemy of the Muslim migrant as representing an existential threat to the nation. In regions of Europe where the extreme right has often targeted ethnic minorities (Jews, Roma, etc.), Islamophobia can develop in the absence of Muslim populations as illiberal governments engage in revisionist policies. As such, populist governmental parties build their politics on the strategy of polarization, creating or recasting new enemies to maintain their power. Meanwhile, traditional, established parties have co-opted elements of far-right policies or rhetoric in attempts to out-flank populism, often ultimately acting to legitimize and enforce polarization.

Trends around financial crises and political instability, as well as the weaponization of crises by malicious political actors have also created a more antagonistic political culture. This antagonistic political culture creates a culture of accepted deception, and gridlock of progress on legislation including for funding which further impacts the economy. This type of polarization even makes it hard for political actors to problem solve on issues that all sides agree on. As a result, citizens lose trust in these key institutions.

Finally, the rise of irregular forms of media and social media have further contributed to the rise of increased polarization all over the world. Polarization is cited as the coming together of hate speech and fake news, as well as other dystopian narratives, combined with prejudices and stereotypes. For example, the use sensationalism within the news. In the European public sphere, there is an increasing focus on ‘crises’ and their news coverage whilst social media sites disrupt traditional channels of news distribution. This has led to the identification of ‘trigger events’, moments within the news cycle that are catalyzed by social media to recirculate alarmist or outright false news, creating misinformation or filter bubbles that reinforce polarization.

In recent years, social media networks have also played an important role in the development of far-reaching and consequential events, such as the assault on the U.S. Capitol in Washington in January 2021. It has been shown that algorithms developed by technological platforms to personalize the information we receive via navigation data have become instruments to control the flow of information and exert an increasing influence on public opinion and on the distribution of information. The risk of removing information that contradicts a user’s points of view, causing their de facto isolation in their own ideological bubble, is known as the ‘echo chamber’ phenomenon or ‘bubble’ filter. This isolation polarizes society and drastically reduces the opposition to and confrontation of ideas as an exercise in critical thinking. Social isolation has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and in some cases created the perfect breeding ground for polarized narratives, mindsets and behaviors. When individuals, groups or communities do not perceive themselves as fairly represented in the institutions responsible for COVID-related decision-making, social cohesion is undermined, and polarization reinforced.

Source: Source for Common Ground. “Video 4: Young Iman in Morocco - A Story of Bridge-Building.’’ 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StMWYkepds4.

Photo Source: European University Institute. “Polarisation Indicators.” BRaVE Project. http://brave-h2020.eu/toolkit.

In order to tackle polarization and build social cohesion, it is crucial to first identify what factors are causing polarization within your community. Social cohesion refers to the presence of social bonds: it holds society together through trust, reciprocity and solidarity. A society might have some form of polarization and at the same time a degree of social cohesion. For example, there might be a strongly polarized and divided political landscape, with political groups neglecting to share common ground, within an overall cohesive society and a general consensus on the norms and values of the democratic system. One project which seeks to examine factors of social cohesion and resilience, that can be used to further analyze other contexts, is the European Union BRaVE project.

The ‘Building Resilience against Violent Extremism and Polarization’ (BRaVE) project aims to systematize existing knowledge and assess the impact of policies and practices in preventing extreme ideologies and polarization in European societies. Based on the project’s research and analysis, the project developed a set of polarization indicators focused the role of three sets of factors in providing fertile ground for extremism and polarization to grow, or conversely in helping to build resilient and cohesive communities: historical and cultural factors; real and perceived socio-economic inequalities; and media discourses, particularly social media communication bubbles.

The BRaVE toolkit allows one to gain a view of ethnic/racial, religious, socio-economic, political, and gender, sex and sexuality-based polarization and resilience factors across ten European Union countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom. The toolkit consists of two sets of indicators: indicators of polarization and indicators of resilience. Polarization indicators are mirrored by a set of corresponding moderation indicators, for example, the polarization indicator set ‘Lack of Belonging’, which contains measures of individuals’ low/no sense of attachment to their local community and country, is mirrored by the moderating indicator set ‘Sense of Belonging’, which contains measures of individuals’ heightened sense of attachment to their country or community. Likewise, resilience indicators are mirrored by a set of corresponding non-resilience indicators. 

The toolkit is designed for a wide range of users: researchers, policymakers, NGOs, and other community-based actors. For this reason, the indicators are general in nature. Essentially, the toolkit is aimed at anyone who is interested in gaining an overview of the current state of different types of polarization and resilience across the European Union. Scores are not meant as an indication of country X performing better or worse than country Y in terms of polarization or resilience. Rather, they are intended to recognize individuals’ fears around those they consider to be different from themselves. Recognizing and understanding the nature of these fears is the first step towards opening up a conversation on such issues and building connections between individuals and the state and/or their communities. 

The toolkit resulted in a set of 100 initial indicators. Indicators were then divided into the four key conceptual categories featured in the BRaVE project framework: Socio-Economic (indicators relating to financial and welfare factors of polarization); Historical (indicators relating to state factors and historic conflicts and politics); Cultural (indicators relating to identity and cultural practices); and Communication-Based (indicators relating to offline and online content and interaction). The process of synthesizing the initial 100 indicators resulted in the development of 20 unique indicators, which were then arranged according to a further level of conceptual categorization within the BRaVE project: that of macro, meso and micro levels of classification. Here, macro refers to state level indicators, meso to community level indicators, and micro to individual or familial level indicators. 

Photo Source: McNeil-Willson, Richard, Vivian Gerrand, Francesca Scrinzi, and Anna Triandafyllidou. “Polarisation, Violent Extremism and Resilience in Europe today: An analytical framework.” BRaVE Project. December, 2019. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D2.1_BRaVE_concept_paper_final_10Dec2019.pdf.

There was also a correlation of factors of ‘violent extremism’ in relation to polarization that was identified. The BRaVE project identified factors cited as helping to create extreme political violence: a conducive environment; opportunity for violence; the cultivation of violent discourses; and the development of mobilizing networks. See table below.

Photo Source: European Forum for Urban Security. “BRIDGE - Understanding and Addressing Polarization at the Local Level.” June, 2021. https://issuu.com/efus/docs/publication_bridge_en_pages.

Building on the factors identified through the BRaVE project, you can go a step further and utilize these examples to help analyze depolarization factors and build social cohesion through diagnosing polarization with local audits. This was done through the ‘Building Resilience to Reduce Polarization and Growing Extremism’ (BRIDGE) project. The objectives of the BRIDGE project were to: raise awareness among local actors and strengthen their capacity to reduce individual and collective vulnerability to radicalization while at the same time mitigating the phenomenon of polarization. This EU Commission funded project consisted of thirteen local and regional European authorities from seven countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain.

A strategic approach to urban security, which should also include the objective of preventing polarization, builds on up-to-date knowledge of the local reality. The implementation of local actions to mitigate and prevent polarization and thus improve individual and collective security requires a clear and precise understanding of potential risk factors and actors, tensions and fragmentations in the specific context of each city. The best way to establish such an assessment is by conducting a local audit, meaning a systematic analysis of the phenomenon of polarization in a local context and at a given time. Indeed, an audit is a snapshot of a situation and thus needs to be regularly updated. It helps to identify priorities as well as assets and resources for preventive measures and enables local and regional authorities to develop concrete strategies to tackle the identified challenges. A local polarization audit will usually involve the analysis of the city’s or region’s demographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as the identification of risk factors and actors that can contribute to increased tensions and polarization. The effectiveness of existing programs and activities aimed at strengthening social cohesion at the local level, including services such as health, housing, welfare and education, should be investigated, as well as the institutional and political environment, in order to build on opportunities and innovative practices. It is also crucial to identify opportunities to increase citizen participation and to involve civil society and local stakeholders in the elaboration of a comprehensive prevention strategy.

Here are a few overall factor areas that should be analyzed based on demographics, social structures, political and social participation, and protection:

Many local and regional authorities are lacking deep and detailed knowledge on the processes of polarization. As we have seen, polarization is a complex, multifaceted and rapidly evolving phenomenon. Research on polarization and policy strategies to address it are being developed at an equally high pace, yet they remain in an early stage. 

While the drivers of polarization can be located at the local, national or international level, the effects often play out locally, potentially fueling tensions, conflicts and violent behaviors within municipalities. 

Local and regional authorities are key stakeholders who can address polarization due to their extensive competencies and relevant resources in preventing violence and fostering social cohesion. Their crime prevention and urban security structures are best placed to diagnose and monitor phenomena of polarization and tensions at the local and regional level. In order to depict a full picture of potential risks and tensions, local and regional authorities should include all groups and communities as well as relevant stakeholders in assessment processes and in the elaboration of strategies and concrete activities to prevent or mitigate polarization. By raising awareness about the phenomenon of polarization, training stakeholders, empowering local actors and associating citizens in these efforts, local and regional authorities can strengthen their communities’ resilience to potential risk factors and actors. The continuous monitoring of polarizing dynamics and trends should be integrated into comprehensive urban security approaches and become a cornerstone of prevention policies at the local and regional level. A comprehensive approach allows local and regional authorities to foster a cohesive and resilient society that provides security for all. 

Prevention and resilience building constitute local authorities’ key assignments in the realm of integrated approaches to urban security. Various local actors and fields can be mobilized and can contribute to building resilience and help prevent polarization, such as youth centers, social and mental health centers, family counseling, sports clubs and religious communities. Prevention activities should foster tolerance and highlight the importance of social, cultural and religious diversity as a basic axiom of a peaceful and democratic society. Strengthening resilience encompasses encouraging individuals to reflect upon and empathize with different experiences, perspectives and viewpoints. Enabling dialogue and citizen participation, as well as ensuring that municipalities and other local institutions represent the diversity of the local population they serve, is fundamental to preserve social cohesion and prevent polarization.

Source: PAVE Project. 'Tarja Mankkinen: Engaging Faith Communities through a Multistakeholder Approach.' 2023. https://youtu.be/AEfSkeGffYY.

• European University Institute. “Polarisation Indicators.” BRaVE Project. http://brave-h2020.eu/toolkit.

• European Forum for Urban Security. “BRIDGE - Understanding and Addressing Polarization at the Local Level.” June, 2021. https://issuu.com/efus/docs/publication_bridge_en_pages.

• Jilani, Zaid and Jeremy Adam Smith. “What is the True Cost of Polarization in America?” Greater Good Magazine. March 4, 2019. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_is_the_true_cost_of_polarization_in_america.

• McNeil-Willson, Richard, Vivian Gerrand, Francesca Scrinzi, and Anna Triandafyllidou. “Polarisation, Violent Extremism and Resilience in Europe today: An analytical framework.” BRaVE Project. December, 2019. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D2.1_BRaVE_concept_paper_final_10Dec2019.pdf.

• Schlafani, Robin and Richard McNeil-Willson. “The Role of Cultural and Historical Factors in Polarization and Violent Extremism.” BRaVE Project. May, 2020. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D6.1_Discussion_Paper_May_2020.pdf.

• Taylor, Paul J. and Sheryl Prentice. “Project Report: Toolkit of Cross-National Polarisation Indicators.” http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/BRaVE%20Summary%20Report%20on%20Deliverable%204.3.pdf.

• Vidra, Zsuzsanna and Michael Zeller. “The Role of Socio-Economic Inequalities in Polarisation and Violent Extremism.’’ BRaVE Project. May, 2020. http://brave-h2020.eu/repository/D7.1._Discussion_Paper_May_2020.pdf.

Objective: In this third session, our objective will be to learn about and build deeper understanding on what the concept of nonviolent communication is about. 

Expected Results: The expected results of this second session will be that participants will build an understanding and knowledge on how to utilize and apply nonviolent communications as skill and tool within their communities within P/CVE efforts.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session: 30 minutes

Agenda for Session 3:

• What is Nonviolent Communication?
• What Are the Fundamental Concepts and Assumptions of Nonviolent Communication?
• How Can I Utilize Nonviolent Communication in My P/CVE Work? The Importance of Language
• How Can I Utilize Nonviolent Communication in My P/CVE Work? The Importance of Communication
• What Attitudes Should I Embody to Implement Nonviolent Communication?
• At What Levels Should I Be Applying Nonviolent Communication?

What is Nonviolent Communication?

Source: The Center for Nonviolent Communication. ''What is Nonviolent Communication?'' https://www.cnvc.org/learn-nvc/what-is-nvc.

Nonviolent communication is based on the principle of ahimsa – the natural state of compassion when no violence is present in the heart.

Nonviolent communication is a consciousness that manifests as a way of being in the world. The purpose of nonviolent communication is to serve life and to create the quality of connection in which everyone’s needs can be met through compassionate giving. Through nonviolent communication we are able to hear our own deeper needs and those of others through an emphasis on deep listening.

1. Consciousness: A set of principles that support living a life of compassion, collaboration, courage, and authenticity.
   
2. Language: Understanding how words contribute to connection or distance.
3. Communication: Knowing how to ask for what you want, how to hear others even in disagreement, and how to move forward towards solutions that work for all.
4. Means of influence: Sharing “power with others” rather than using “power over others”.
   

All human beings have the same needs and feelings, but there are different strategies to meet those needs and feelings. First, you must start with your observation and then connect that to how you are feeling. Our feelings inform us of our needs and if they are being met or unmet, as well as the strategic actions that we should try to take to meet those needs, including our requests. For you to make a request of someone, you have to be okay with their answer or response, otherwise you have just made a demand. You have to be willing to rethink your approach to expressing your feelings to ensure you are communicating nonviolently.

Through empathetically listening and honestly expressing our feelings, needs, observations and requests, individuals can engage in nonviolent communication.

Source: Rosenberg, Marshall. ‘’Nonviolent communication: A Language of Life.’’ October 10, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sjA90hvnQ0&t=2s.

Below are some fundamental concepts and assumptions of nonviolent communication. These concepts support the integration of consciousness.

• Universal Human Needs: The concept of needs is the cornerstone of nonviolent communication. A need is defined as the energy in living organisms that compels them to seek fulfillment and to thrive. Examples of needs include water, air, freedom and meaning. We hold needs as universal. Thus, expressing our needs and acknowledging the needs of others enables us to connect at a deep place of the human experience and create common ground. We believe that all our actions --anything anyone ever does-- are attempts to meet our needs. With this realization in mind, we are able to understand others’ actions however baffling. We can transform judgment into empathic understanding. In a safe environment, free of judgment and blame, it is easier to find solutions that can meet everyone’s needs.

• Connection First: When conflict arises, we seek empathic connection first and then solutions. We define connection as the moment in which two people experience what is alive in each other simultaneously. We trust that in the space of heart connection we have access to a well of creativity where we can think of options that can meet everyone’s needs. In the context of connection, we can resolve disagreements peacefully.
  
• The Need for Contribution: We believe that contributing to the wellbeing of others is one of the most powerful forces of human motivation. At times, we disconnect from our need for contribution because of the way we have been conditioned to think -- that when our needs are not met it is the other person’s fault. When this happens, we want to punish the other person, not contribute to him or her. To restore our need for contribution we can ask someone to listen to us with empathy or engage in self-empathy to help us reconnect with our compassionate nature.

• Interdependence: We believe that human beings are interdependent, as opposed to independent. We need one another to live and to thrive. We believe that what affects one affects all. If a child is starving, we are all affected if we are aware of our deep feelings and the human need for the wellbeing of all. We need others to build the houses we live in, grow the fruit and vegetables we eat, and sew the clothes we wear. We need carpenters, doctors, janitors and teachers. Our environmental, health and economic systems affect the global community in visible and invisible but important ways.
  
• Value Judgments: Nonviolent communication invites us to judge actions and situations by determining whether or not they are in harmony with our values as opposed to making moralistic judgments. For instance, rather than saying, “Violence is wrong,” we would say, “I value the resolution of conflicts through safe and peaceful means.” Nonviolent Communication posits that moralistic judgments –thoughts of criticism and blame– are at the root of violence. Judging people as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ leads to anger, and anger often leads to violence. Furthermore, when we judge someone as bad or wrong, we feel justified in acting with violence because we tell ourselves that the person deserves it. For instance, we may think “Terrorists deserve to die.”

• The Protective Use of Force: When someone acts in a way that compromises safety, we use force as a means of protection, but never as punishment. We do not cause suffering so that a person learns a lesson. To bring back social order when it has been broken, nonviolent communication proposes education and restoration as opposed to retribution.
  
• Universal Wisdom: Nonviolent communication is consonant with the highest principles of the great world religions.

The next aspect of nonviolent communication is around language. In order to allow for deeper connection and dialogue with others, two types of supportive language categories are helpful to help deepen self-discovery and to facilitate greater understanding and connection between people: a needs inventory and a feelings inventory. These example lists are neither exhaustive nor definitive.

Photo Source: The Center for Nonviolent Communication. ‘’Feelings Inventory.’’ Accessed October 17, 2022. https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/feelings-inventory.

Feelings when your needs are not satisfied.

Hear from Miriam Attias, Mediator and Trainer for Community for Mediation, on how to utilize non-violent communication and other restorative practices to address local intercommunity tension.

The next aspect is around communication. There are five elements to be conscious of within the process of nonviolent communication. When experiencing disconnection from others, use this list to see if all of your elements are in alignment:

1. Consciousness - Ask yourself: Am I self-connected? Am I expressing myself honestly and vulnerably? Am I listening empathically? Am I valuing the needs of others as my own? Am I committed to seeking solutions that can meet everyone’s needs?
2. Thought - Ask Yourself: Is there judgment or blame in my awareness? Am I angry or resentful in this moment as I engage with the other person?
3. Language - Ask Yourself:  Are my words free of criticism and blame?
4. Communication - Ask Yourself: Is my non-verbal communication or tone of voice and body language congruent with my words?
5. Use of Power - Ask Yourself: Do I want to overpower this person to get what I want? Am I caring about his or her needs as my own? Am I making a request or a demand in disguise? Am I prepared to hear the word no, listen empathically and maintain connection? Am I willing to stay in the dialogue until we find a solution that accommodates both of us? All involved?

Photo Source: Moglich, Harald. “Non-Violent Communication.” https://harald-moeglich.de/en/non-violent-communication/.

Photo Source: Ulmer, Charlee. “Expressing Gratitude Through Non-Violent Communication. https://duckvillageyoga.com/expressing-gratitude-non-violent-communication/.

When living in, and relating from nonviolent communication consciousness we embody the following attitudes:

• Self-Connection: We relate to ourselves and the world from a still place within, a place of compassion, truth, clarity, and peace. To maintain self-connection, nonviolent communication proposes one engages in a daily practice known as "Remembering". Examples of Remembering practices include meditation, prayer, inspirational readings, poetry, inspirational music, and quiet time in nature.
• Honest Expression: We express ourselves vulnerably and without criticism or blame. We reveal our feelings and needs and ask for what we want, without demanding.
• Empathic Presence: We listen to others with a silent mind and an open heart. Our sole purpose is to connect with the speaker by understanding his or her feelings and needs deeply and without judgment. We attempt to remain empathically present even when we are the target of criticism, blame and other such forms of communication.
• Self-Empathy: When we are no longer able to be present to the other person, or when we become angry, we take time out to vent our judgments in the privacy of our minds. We identify and connect with the unmet needs in a given interaction and we mourn the pain of the unmet needs. This process enables us to reconnect with our essence. We use self-empathy also to mourn and heal from disappointment or loss, to celebrate needs met, or simply to understand ourselves more fully. Once we experience an organic shift, we are calmer and have more clarity to address the challenge at hand. We ask ourselves what we can do to fulfill the unmet needs in the situation.
• Use of Power: We attempt to influence others in the context of connection, rather than through coercion. We want others to contribute to us out of natural giving, and never out of fear, guilt, shame, duty, desire for reward, or to buy love. We care about the needs of others as our own, and we are committed to seeking solutions that can meet the needs of all involved.

The final aspect is means of influence. The process of nonviolent communication applies to three dimensions of life:

1. Personal – We employ the nonviolent communication process to liberate ourselves from cultural conditioning; to heal the wounds of life; to transform judgments into understanding of unmet needs; and to transform anger, guilt, shame, depression and fear into life-serving emotions that increase inner peace and inner freedom.
2. Interpersonal – We relate to others with empathy, honesty, mutuality, and care thus increasing trust, understanding, and harmony in relationships.

3. Societal – We live nonviolent communication principles and implement the process in our efforts to contribute to a better world. Our social change work is fueled by gratitude as opposed to anger.

These dimensions are intertwined. Our state of mind and heart influences how we relate to others. How we relate to people can set in motion a chain of actions and reactions that impact society in unforeseen ways – for better or for worse.

Here are ten things you can do to contribute to internal, interpersonal and to organizational peace.

1. Spend some time each day quietly reflecting on how we would like to relate to ourselves and others.
2. Remember that all human beings have the same needs.
3. Check our intention to see if we are as interested in others getting their needs met as our own.
4. When asking someone to do something, check first to see if we are making a request or a demand.
5. Instead of saying what we DON'T want someone to do, say what we DO want the person to do.
6. Instead of saying what we want someone to BE, say what action we'd like the person to take that we hope will help the person be that way.
7. Before agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's opinions, try to tune in to what the person is feeling and needing.
8. Instead of saying "No," say what need of ours prevents us from saying "Yes."
9. If we are feeling upset, think about what need of ours is not being met, and what we could do to meet it, instead of thinking about what's wrong with others or ourselves.

10. Instead of praising someone who did something we like, express our gratitude by telling the person what need of ours that action met.

Objective: In this fourth session, our objective will be to learn about the basic concepts, methodologies, models and tools needed to use intrafaith and interfaith dialogue for peace and reconciliation.

Expected Results: The expected results of this fourth session will be that participants will strengthen their ability and capacity to utilize intrafaith and interfaith dialogue as a tool to build trust and to promote peacebuilding and social inclusion within their P/CVE efforts.

Amount of Time Anticipated for Session: 1.5 hours

Agenda for Session 4

• What is Dialogue?
• Dialogue? Debate? Discussion?
• What is Intrafaith and Interfaith Dialogue?
• Role of Policymakers Within Interfaith Dialogue
• Planning Your Interfaith Dialogue
• Implementing Your Own Local Interfaith Dialogue in Partnership with Faith Actors and Institutions
• Monitoring and Evaluation

• Challenges to Implementing Interfaith Dialogue

Graphic Source: Helde, Mette Lindgren. “The Dialogue Handbook.” 2020. Danish Youth Council and Danish Centre for Conflict Resolution. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Dialogambassadoererne/DialogueHandbook__final-169600__1_.pdf.

The word “dialogue” is derived from the Greek words “dia” meaning “through” and “logos” meaning “word,” as well as the verb “dialegomai,” which means “to become involved in a conversation with another.” Dialogue is commonly understood as, “a form of interaction between two or more individuals of different identities that emphasizes self-expression and where each party strives to use active, empathetic and non-judgmental listening in a compassionate spirit of openness and understanding.” In dialogue, the goal is not always finding a resolution to a problem or settling on a specific tangible action. Instead, the point is to explore and find common ground, which may lead to solutions or cooperation. Successful dialogue includes establishing mutual understanding and increased confidence and trust between the two parties.

Dialogue is like a movement, where those taking part in the exchange explore new possibilities. Participants are open, listen and ask questions. They take their time to savor and digest other viewpoints. Together they try to figure out what makes sense for one party, what makes sense for the other party, and what sense they can make in concert. This is what makes dialogue ‘special’. Dialogue has proven itself, in theory and practice, to be an effective and efficient tool for creating the positive changes we urgently need as a global community. Dialogue works to de-escalate any stage of a conflict and has value in processes of peacebuilding and policymaking, organizational and societal development, and any initiatives aiming to create more inclusive and peaceful societies.

So why is dialogue a useful tool for resolving community tension and conflict?

There are four basic principles which together make up the foundation on which the dialogue rests: 1) trust; 2) openness; 3) honesty; and 4) equality. The four principles are interrelated and constitute preconditions for dialogue. They foster dialogue and are in turn fostered by dialogue.  

1. Trust

When there is trust between persons in communication, it is easier to express opposing views. However, trust is not always a given when people wish to enter into a dialogue. On the contrary, opposite opinions can give rise to distrust and unease. Thus, the dialogical form per se can help build that trust. One party listens, while the other feels heard. It is reassuring to feel listened to. It gives rise to trust and courage to open up. The parties dare to communicate their views and profound values more honestly, even when they differ from each other. They begin to listen to one another and are inclined to ask more exploratory questions. Thus, a virtuous circle is set in motion.

2. Openness

Openness is both being honest about what you represent and being open to what the other suggests. You are open to understand the other’s views and what underlies them, without necessarily having to accept them or agree with them. Openness is related to the building of trust. Communication driven by inquiry and curiosity signals openness and introduces trust into the conversation.

3. Honesty

Honesty is about authenticity in being who you are, both in your words and your way of being. Honesty fosters openness and trust, while dishonesty fosters mistrust. Honesty is required in communication to let the recipient gain insights into the needs and values that underlie the viewpoints. It is necessary to build trust in the relationship and to come across as authentic.

4. Equality

Dialogue is based on the value that everybody has something to say, regardless of status, gender, ethnic background, etc. In a dialogue everybody joins in on an equal footing. They may differ in status and power, but all voices have the same right to be heard. Notwithstanding differences in status, dialogue means seeking to communicate as equals. This calls for paying attention to the implications of status and power in the relationship. It might be necessary to compensate for discrepancies in status and power, say, by showing special consideration for the party holding less relative power.

Dialogue is often confused with other ways of communicating, such as debate, discussion or argument. These forms of interaction are often employed in negotiations, where the goal is to devise solutions, arrive at joint decisions or reach an agreement. Emphasis rests on convincing, persuading and “getting your own way” – whoever has the best argument, wins. Debates and discussions are equally important in negotiations and as tools to reach agreements and results. Dialogue is not always the best or only way to communicate. It can be entirely appropriate to try to persuade others of personal views or values, to assert opinions or claim rights.

In situations where discussion and debate are the most obvious ways to communicate, a dialogic approach is often of great advantage – including when the focus is on making decisions, reaching agreements or closing a deal, or when you are convinced that your opinion is the right one. Participants in a dialogue actively explore both the subject on the agenda, the viewpoints on the subject matter, and the underlying beliefs. This type of conversation gives rise to trust, reassurance, confidence and a deeper degree of contact between the parties communicating. This strengthens the relationship and bridges the various beliefs and values in play.

Photo Source: Mette Lindgren Helde. “The Dialogue Handbook - the art of conducting a dialogue and facilitating dialogue workshops.” 2012. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Publikationer/DialogHaandbog_UK_new.pdf.

When differing values, beliefs and views clash, our own categorizations and prejudices are often barriers to understanding. In a dialogue, one tries to take in the perspective of the other party, though being aware that one sometimes just cannot understand, let alone accept, their opinion. Merely recognizing this fact gives rise to greater mutual understanding of each other as the distinct human beings that we are. Thus, dialogue creates deeper respect for differences and an opportunity to become wiser. Because when we share our differences, knowledge and insights, something extraordinary emerges: a synergy effect. In somewhat simplified terms, this means that several people create something together that exceeds the sum of what each of them creates on their own.

When we manage to move beyond viewpoints and prejudices – both our own and those of others – it creates an opportunity for entirely new insights. Insight denotes understanding at a deeper level given the kind of person you are, including your experiences, values and feelings. Insight is related to ‘aha!’ experiences and realizations. It arises when what you used to think or understand is perceived in a new light. It happens through dialogue and reflection, when we put our thoughts.

A three-dimensional metaphor – the head, the heart and the hand – can be used to illustrate the multifaceted nature of dialogue. When we want to understand, deal with, conduct and teach dialogue, all three dimensions are important.

Graphic Source: KAICIID. “Guide to interreligious dialogue: Building differences and building sustainable societies.” 2021. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/guide-interreligious-dialogue.

The head refers to the mind and points to the importance of gaining knowledge about dialogue with the purpose of developing an open mind and a dialogic mindset – that is, an awareness and ability to consciously choose a dialogic approach, even in situations of profound disagreement that could otherwise lead to escalation of a conflict or even a fight. Instead, the question should be asked: “Do I want or need to (fight and) win? Or can I look for opportunities to enter into a dialogue with an open mind, trying to understand other perspectives?”

The heart refers to a set of dialogic values – respect for differences, equality, openness, tolerance, acknowledgement, empathy and compassion. The dimension of the heart implies a belief in dialogue as a valuable bridge-builder between people of different opinions, backgrounds and identities. The shared human desire to connect with others provides the opportunity to understand even those who may be perceived as different.

Finally, the hand refers to a set of practical skills and actions needed to make the dialogue happen. The skills are communicative techniques and tools that support and enhance the dialogue – for instance, enquiry and curiosity, which can be shown by asking open, explorative questions and applying active listening with an open heart and mind. The hand dimension can also include certain guidelines for constructive behaviors that encourage dialogue and support a conversation or process. 

Below are examples of an approach to dialogue.

For dialogue, it is recommended to focus on opportunities related to commonalities between religions and cultures. Most of the world’s religions are built on the same basic human values of respect, freedom, justice, community, love and compassion. The majority of religious and spiritual traditions highly value principles of acknowledgement, remorse, tolerance and forgiveness – principles linked to those of non-violent conflict resolution, peace and reconciliation processes. Choosing an intrafaith or interfaith dialogue approach that focuses on common values found in most religions is a fruitful technique for relating conversations and projects to the convictions and motivations of those with religious identities.

In preparing for an interfaith dialogue, as a prerequisite, it could be helpful to first start with an intrafaith dialogue. Intrafaith dialogue aims to create introspective awareness and focus on the needs and challenges within the same faith groups and religious and cultural identities. Beginning with intrafaith dialogue can be a complementary element in preparing the specific religious community for the next step of working with other faiths in interfaith dialogue in order to enhance the joint understanding within the same faith community. It can also offer an avenue for discussion between more moderate and radical views and possibilities for a change in the interpretation of the faith. 

See this example of intrafaith dialogue from Iraq:

After Saddam Hussein was ousted from power, a number of political prisoners were released. Some of these political prisoners were imprisoned as the result of information from neighbors or someone they know. After they were released, the former prisoners started threatening and retaliating against these individuals. These individuals went to their Sheiks to inform them of the situation. The former prisoners immediately stopped their threats, waiting to be adjudicated by the Sheiks. The Sheiks of both the accused and the accuser started an investigation to determine guilt, using the religious principles of evidence-seeking to investigate the situation. This is an example of intrafaith dialogue to resolve a conflict between two parties of the same faith group.

If the violation is determined to be dishonorable to the whole tribe of the accused, the tribe distances itself from that person, forcing the accused to find a solution by himself. If not, the tribe will pitch in to pay compensation to the aggrieved family. In such cases, the community will come together in dialogue to negotiate the amount of compensation until they reach an appropriate amount. At this stage, dialogue becomes a community effort in order to arrive at a financial compensation that will be satisfactory to the victim.

Whereas, interreligious or interfaith dialogue aims to create mutual understanding and respect by focusing on similarities and differences between faith groups and religious and cultural identities. Interfaith dialogue can assist in solving disagreements, issues or tensions at risk of escalating into violent conflict, especially in contexts where cultural and religious identities are at stake or part of the subject matter. Interfaith dialogue strives to create trusting connections that support people to live and cooperate with each other across boundaries. 

Source: KAICIID. “What Is Interreligious Dialogue?” 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJaeJz9jQU8.

Source: PAVE Project. ‘’Mohamed Elsanousi: Supporting Inter- and Intrafaith dialogue.’’ 2023.  https://youtu.be/bM6uYkCJXcI.

Interfaith Dialogue Creates Social Cohesion to Empower Women, Youth and Marginalized Groups.

Dialogue is key for promoting inclusivity and engaging women, youth, marginalized groups, diaspora communities and people who are typically not at the center of negotiations or policymaking. It allows diverse groups to be informed about peace processes and decision making, thereby promoting transparency and dispelling potential misinformation. Thus, dialogue should also be understood as a core preventative measure.

Photo Source: KAICIID. “Guide to interreligious dialogue: Building differences and building sustainable societies.” 2021. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/guide-interreligious-dialogue.

Photo Source: KAICIID. “Youth, Development and Dialogue.” 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qALIiGfsZM4.

Interfaith dialogue serves to transform perspectives and support viewing religious and cultural differences not as obstacles but as starting points of a process that aims to find sustainable solutions for the common good. Initiatives that build bridges between religious and secular stakeholders create mutual confidence and have a larger impact overall, as they improve inclusion and show that cooperation between different groups is possible. 

Policymakers play a vital role in peace work. They establish laws and policies that support moving our societies in a more sustainable direction. Policymakers at all levels can (many already do) use their positions of responsibility and influence to advocate for dialogue, peace and social cohesion. Some examples of this include:

• Searching for a more in-depth understanding of how laws and policies can contribute to social cohesion and peace;
• Aiming to transform strained vertical relationships between the state and civil society by including all groups and increasing respect for religious and cultural diversity;
• Cultivating trust in government and official institutions that exist for the benefit of all members of society; and
• Engaging in partnerships and networks with faith-based organizations and religious communities to promote and implement policies to reach out to diverse members of their societies.

As many are already doing, their position of responsibility and influence can be used at all levels to advocate for dialogue, peace and social cohesion. This includes, for example:

• Promoting and sustaining peace by denouncing all violence in the name of religion;
• Calling to protect religious and cultural diversity by speaking against oppression, marginalization, discrimination and persecution of minorities in the name of religion;
• Encouraging non-violence and dialogue when violent extremists seek to manipulate religion to justify violent actions; and
• Engaging in partnerships and networks with other faith-based organizations, religious communities and secular institutions at local, national and global levels.

Religious leaders and policymakers may see the issues at stake within the context of their own perspectives and roles. While religious leaders typically work as moral and spiritual leaders in their communities, policymakers most often approach issues from a secular point of view. To ensure meaningful engagement between both sides, both parties should make the effort to understand each other. Policymakers can acknowledge that every religious tradition offers resources for peace, reconciliation and the intention of living in harmony with others, despite their differences. Religious actors can embrace processes of rational analysis and use evidence-based information when starting peacebuilding initiatives, as evidence has the potential to influence the policymaking process. Both approaches can help build bridges between policymakers and religious communities, as well as religious leaders and civil society actors. In some parts of the world, policymakers are also religious leaders – and vice versa. In such cases, the importance of reaching out to policymakers or people working in civil society is especially clear, with the purpose of creating cooperative platforms for both secular and non-secular actors.

There are five guiding principles to start interfaith dialogue initiatives. These five principles can serve as inspiration for promoting or starting dialogue initiatives to address issues of importance in individuals' contexts. These principles should be understood as points of awareness rather than a strict recipe. They are applicable at the individual, institutional and societal level. Asking these basic questions is a solid entry point for starting a new dialogue initiative.

PRINCIPLE 1: Purpose

WHY ARE YOU STARTING YOUR INITIATIVE?

A clear purpose drives and motivates any change process. This purpose can keep the initiative going, especially during difficult times. Determine the deep purpose for change and what drives your action.

PRINCIPLE 2: People

WHO IS CALLED?

Dialogue initiatives for positive change are a multilateral effort, and each actor has a role to play. If any important actors are excluded the dialogue becomes less effective. Include all stakeholders, leaders and actors from religious communities, policymakers at all levels, and representatives from business, media and civil society.

PRINCIPLE 3: Place

WHERE ARE YOU?

Any initiative that aims to transform behaviors, mindsets and structures must always center on where the change should take place. Looking at best practices and successes of other programs can serve as a reference and inspiration. Adapt your working strategy to the challenges and your own context.

PRINCIPLE 4: Plan

WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

Planning is a matter of balance. Putting effort and resources into analysis and planning is key. It can feel scary or difficult to shift from planning to action but moving forward is only possibly through putting plans into practice. Stick to the plan, evaluate, change and adjust as needed.

PRINCIPLE 5: Patience

HOW WILL YOU STAY RESILIENT?

In the process of change, whether a small action or a major cultural transformation, reaching goals can take a long time. One intervention or project is seldom enough. Sometimes lifelong engagement is needed. Support and cheer on yourself and your collaborators and celebrate every success you achieve.

Let’s dive deeper.

The first step is to clarify the purpose – the “why.” Gaining basic knowledge about the theories and methods of interfaith dialogue should come next. Thirdly, make a plan by defining a clear common goal, an outline of the expected results, and some milestones to serve as routes for action in practice. Planning is about making choices. A structured dialogue process is an effective way to ensure appropriate choices are made. In general, the more conscious the choices, the better the outcome. A well-known framework for this approach is the theory of change. This theory assumes that reality is ever changing, and that circumstances and humans are unpredictable – preparing a plan is recommended, but we should be aware that different systems around us hold an inherent complexity that affects the possibilities of reaching our goals.

The theory of change supports the process of deciding where to start, the steps to take, and in which order, by beginning with the expected result. We then work backwards until we land at the starting point, and from there actions can be selected for moving forward. The theory of change enables an integrated approach to project and program design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and communication. When developing a theory of change, a variety of stakeholders should be involved, including other program colleagues, beneficiaries and partners. The process of developing a theory of change together – and the dialogue that accompanies it – is often as important as the diagram it produces. 

Planning an initiative or a project:

Dialogue principles and processes are an integral part of implementing the following six steps:

Source: OSCE. “Interfaith Dialogue.” 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ5RLqv6BXg.

Hear from Emina Frljak, International Youth Committee Member of Religions for Peace an Program Coordinator for Youth for Peace and Sarah Oliver, Associate Director of Global Programs with United Religions Initiative on how to facilitate and design your own interfaith dialogue session.

An interfaith dialogue is a planned, structured learning process for a group, which actively involves the participants, and which has a particular purpose. It always offers scope for participants to contribute actively. The workshop must be tailor-made to its participants on the basis of their needs and the overall purpose of the event. Reflection on various activities must be incorporated throughout and variation must be at the heart of the planning. 

The elementary design of an interfaith dialogue is composed of three parts:

1. Introduction: opening and setting the framework
2. Action: the activities (introductory talks, exercises, dialogue, reflection, conversations, etc.)
3. Finalization: summing up, rounding off and evaluation

Introduction

The introduction must capture the participants’ attention. It needs to give a clear idea of what the workshop is about, and it should motivate participants to get involved. The introduction comprises the opening and the setting of the framework for the workshop. The opening serves to establish a common understanding within the group as regards the purpose, content and form of the workshop. The setting of the framework aims to ensure an optimal process by fostering an atmosphere among participants that is conducive to dialogue and learning. This is achieved by bringing the principles of dialogue – trust, openness, honesty and equality – into play. Participants need to feel at ease, become keen and muster the courage to join in. You do this by agreeing on a set of rules for the workshop, and by using icebreakers, in which participants ‘discover’ one another and begin to enter into contact.

The opening and setting of the framework typically comprise:

• Entry – before you start. Readying the room and yourself.
• Welcome, introduction of facilitators and participants
• Presentation of the program and issue
• Practical information
• Rules for the dialogue
• Icebreakers

A less experienced workshop facilitator can be tempted to race through the introduction in order to get on with the dialogue. However, consider that the dialogue has actually already begun, especially if you involve participants in, for example, laying down the rules.

Laying down the rules can include instructions, such as:

• Chatham House Rule or asking participants to keep what is said in the room confidential
• To respect differences
• Not to interrupt others when they are speaking
• To allow for all participants the time and space to speak
• For participants to not give anyone advice
• For participants to listen to others 
• For participants to speak in the first person, using “I” statements
• Allowing participants the opportunity to skip answering a question that they feel uncomfortable answering or may find triggering

Action
The action is the workshop ‘core’ and what tends to take up the most time and attention. It comprises introductory talks, activities, exercises, sessions of shared reflection or of group work, discussion, questions and answers, dialogues and monologues. This is where the dialogue is deepened and unfolds in earnest. 

Finalization
The final stage aims to bring together any loose ends and properly say goodbye. This is important for the sake of participants as well as the workshop facilitator. The finalization comprises three parts: 

1. Summing up of the content; 
2. Rounding off of the process; and 
3. Evaluation in terms of feedback from participants on the workshop.

The summing up focuses on revisiting key points, pearls of wisdom, and aha! experiences that came to light throughout the workshop. The participants are reminded of what they have learned, and they get an opportunity to reflect on their own learning. A workshop about dialogue often touches on profound values and unleashes powerful emotions. A proper rounding off helps the participants (and the facilitator) to leave the workshop in an emotionally appropriate state. It highlights the process and what it has been like to take part in it. 

Furthermore, planning must take into account:

• Form: How should the process be structured? How is it going to happen?
• Process: How do you prepare for the dynamics and what is to take place between the participants? To what extent are the participants to be involved and how?
• The Facilitator: Who will guide the conversation? Are they a trusted individual of group participants?

Form

The form is the way in which things are done and is difficult to disentangle from the content. Form and content make up a whole, and ideally, they go hand in hand. The form in an interfaith dialogue concerns, for instance, how tables and chairs have been placed, and how you come across as a facilitator through your communication (everything you say and do). It includes, for example, how personal or formal you are, as well as your way of instructing, reflecting and holding dialogues. During planning, you make conscious choices so that the form underpins rather than contradicts the content.

For instance, placing chairs in a circle is standard in a dialogue. But you should always consider if this is really the optimal solution for this particular group, day and program. And even if you have a strong sense of humor, it may not be the personal characteristic most appropriate to exhibit with this particular group and subject matter. Everything you say and do is amplified and interpreted more keenly when you take to the floor and all eyes are on you as the leader of the workshop. This calls for additional thoughtfulness and for striking the right balance between being yourself as you are and being conscious of how your form comes across to others.

Process

In an interfaith dialogue, participants are always involved in the process. However, how and to what extent must be looked into during the planning. Participant involvement comes naturally in connection with the myriad dialogue activities throughout the workshop. In the opening stage, it obviously happens when participants have to agree on the rules. They can also have their say on what issues should be placed on the agenda, how many breaks should be held and when, and about their expectations as regards what they hope to gain from it. When you compare and reconcile expectations, you start from the contract, that is, what has been agreed beforehand, checking with participants if they are okay with this. If not, the program is adjusted as much as possible to their needs. This approach is an advantage if you have decided to favor a high degree of participants’ involvement in the process. It will make them jump right into having a dialogue with one another about something they can all relate to.

Towards the end of the workshop, participants can be involved more or less directly in the summing up and rounding off. And always in the evaluation. In the latter, you must keep in mind that there are two tracks: What have the participants learned that was new to them (their gains)? And how did they like taking part in the dialogue (feedback to you as a facilitator)?

Facilitator

The person, group or organization calling people to dialogue has the responsibility to plan and conduct the process. How it evolves, however, is a shared responsibility of the group. Dialogue will unfold in the most rewarding way when one or more people take on the role of facilitator, convener or moderator. Their purpose is to conduct and lead the process and hold space for participants to easily engage in dialogue. When people gather to have a conversation on high stakes issues or are already in the midst of an escalated conflict, the facilitator has a certain wider responsibility. They need to be experienced and skilled in facilitation, dialogue and conflict management and have a deep respect for the delicacy of such processes. If the process is not conducted well, what was meant to resolve problems and build connections could have the opposite effect and escalate the tension, which may lead to conflict.

Building bridges with dialogue is best done with a sense of established purpose. If the participating individual or organization does not feel ready to convene a dialogue, partnering up with other dedicated people or organizations with more skills and experience is recommended.

The ten principles and six phases of dialogue go hand in hand. These models are built on widespread understanding of how dialogic processes work and what is needed to plan and conduct them in a productive way. Both models also serve as an efficient framework for the early planning stages of dialogue, including when reaching out to potential participants to start building bridges across differences.

The following ten principles serve as a guideline when forming a dialogue’s basic structure. Some of the principles are the participants’ responsibility, while others fall under the duties of the organization or person leading the process.

The Ten Principles of Dialogue

Photo Source: KAICIID. “Guide to interreligious dialogue: Building differences and building sustainable societies.” 2021. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/guide-interreligious-dialogue.

1. Establish a safe space. A safe environment encourages participants in the dialogue to express feelings, ideas and even negative perceptions of others. Some features that help create a feeling of trust and openness include treating each other equally despite power asymmetries and sharing time and space fairly among all participants. To cultivate a safe space, the facilitator also considers the physical environment, respects different customs and religious, cultural and gender needs, and balances external pressures such as security agencies or the media.

2. Agree that the main purpose of the dialogue is learning. The participants should approach the dialogue with the intention of learning about others and their perceptions of the subject of the dialogue. This is essential for success, as it counters the negotiator or debater approach, which aims to prove one right and the other wrong. The dialogue dimensions of the head (the mind) and the heart (the will) are part of this principle.

3. Use appropriate communication skills. There are several types of communication tools that you should utilize within your interfaith dialogue process.

1. First, you should enter into engaging contact. Dialogue brings us into engaging contact. And communication endowed with this quality, in turn, nourishes the dialogue. You feel heard, seen and understood. You experience that you are truly seeing, hearing and understanding the other. What matters is to be at the only place where you can be at the only time that is possible: right here and right now. To pull this off, it is a good starting point to know your own views and values, and to be in touch with your own feelings and needs. 

2. Second, you should be listening actively and with empathy, speaking with sincerity and respect. Active listening is a simple and effective tool to show that you have really heard what the other has said. You express genuine interest and curiosity by being fully tuned into what the other is saying. You ask questions and use confirmatory and appreciative body language, such as eye contact and nodding. You signal that you really do want to understand what is on the other person’s mind. In its purest form, active listening means disregarding yourself. This is a key point to notice. We tend to want to take to the stage to have our say. And we want to help. There is nothing wrong with that. But in conversations where actively listening has been deliberately chosen as a tool to stimulate dialogue, you must resist the temptation to speak your mind. You refrain from giving advice and suggesting solutions. Unless you are asked directly. Otherwise, you are about to take over the conversation and hog the limelight. And this is not nearly as conducive to engaging contact and dialogue.

3. Finally, you should practice mirroring, including asking open-ended questions and repeating (parts of) what the other person says are simple ways to invite dialogue and increase mutual understanding. Mirroring means rendering, word by word, what the other has just said. It is a simple technique also used in active listening. Mirroring signals to the other that you have heard what was said. At the same time, there is a certain mechanical effect enabling you to understand something better when you have said it aloud. Hence the expression of ‘savoring’ the viewpoints of the other person. You can also mirror the other person with your body language. For example, you can lean forward when the other does so; put your hand under your cheek, when the other does the same; or take up eye contact, when the other invites you to do so. We do this all by ourselves once the engaging contact has been established, and when we want a deeper contact to be there. But we can also stimulate the contact by deliberately mirroring the other.

Mette Lindgren Helde. “The Dialogue Handbook - the art of conducting a dialogue and facilitating dialogue workshops.” 2012. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Publikationer/DialogHaandbog_UK_new.pdf.

4. Set proper ground rules. Ground rules help to facilitate dialogue and support a safe environment. The rules can be established together with the participants or laid out at the beginning by the facilitator. Inviting participants to adjust or suggest rules is important to encourage the group to take ownership and thus ease their implementation.

5. Take risks, express feelings and confront perceptions with honesty. Dialogue aims to build confidence and provide a feeling of safety in the group. Participants should be encouraged to participate actively, speak openly and from the heart, and listen with attention to others’ thoughts and feelings. Taking risks can enhance the possibility for deeper learning and understanding of the self and others.

6. Put relationships before issues. Dialogue is a transformative process, based on building relationships and trust between different personalities and identities to overcome misunderstandings and manage differences. A way to do this is to see the other party as a partner, not a rival, and to notice a common interest in solving the issue instead of letting it be something that divides us. Even if the issues are not resolved among the dialogue participants, the objective remains to build sustainable relationships between them.

7. Gradually address the hard questions and gradually depart from them. Since investing in the relationship is vital for the success of the dialogue, we need to approach the problematic topic gradually. The more we invest in building the relationship, the easier it will become to address the hard questions. Addressing the hard questions can make the participants emotional; it is important to depart from these topics gradually and focus on the relationship and the common needs and interests of solving the issue.

8. Do not avoid difficult issues or quit. A dialogue often becomes challenging as we move through the different stages of the process. When difficult issues emerge, it is a sign that confidence has increased and the group dares to share what is important to them. It is essential to stick to the purpose of learning, creating mutual understanding and building relationships and not let the group derail into a discussion of what or who is right or wrong. Quitting in the middle of the difficult topics can create more damage than healing. Focus should be on creating clarity about the root causes of the issues and how different perspectives may contribute to a new common understanding and even a solution.

9. Expect to be changed. Dialogue provides the opportunity to walk in the shoes of others. By sharing perceptions, and resolving misperceptions when needed, we may discover some new perspectives. We should have flexible opinions and be ready to change. This is not about changing our values (although this can happen if we want) but about being open to changing our points of view, stereotypes about others and the way we perceive issues.

10. Bring the change to others. A dialogue can bring new learning, perspectives and relationships. Crossing the bridges we have built creates a space for many new opportunities. It is important to reflect together about how to bring these new perspectives to our communities and take concrete action together or with people from other faith groups or organizations.

Mette Lindgren Helde. “The Dialogue Handbook - the art of conducting a dialogue and facilitating dialogue workshops.” 2012. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Publikationer/DialogHaandbog_UK_new.pdf.

The six-phase model explains the different phases that a well-conducted dialogue goes through. These phases are stepping stones that the facilitator needs to ease the dialogic process, both when planning and conducting the dialogue.

Photo Source: KAICIID. “Guide to interreligious dialogue: Building differences and building sustainable societies.” 2021. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/guide-interreligious-dialogue.

1. GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER: 

Enter into an encounter with others with an open mind, ready to get to know the self and others in new ways. Be willing to listen to others’ points of view and try to understand their identity.

2. DISCOVER BIASES, FEARS AND TABOOS:

Listen actively and acknowledge the issues, points or topics where different perceptions, perspectives or understandings can be found. Seek out more information and ask explorative questions to discover the foundations of others’ worldviews and thinking patterns.

3. IDENTIFY DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICT ISSUES:

Clarify the issues and find out what is at stake – how you can “agree on where we disagree.” Make a common decision on the starting point for the dialogue and what to include in the agenda.

4. OUTLINE COMMONALITIES AND AGREEMENTS:

Identify common purposes, needs, values and interests. Create distance from biases and look for any common goals.

5. LAY OUT A PLAN OF CONCRETE ACTION:

Talk about what can be done together starting from the agreed common purpose or goal. Clarify the next steps, who else should be involved, and how the common vision for change can be shared with others.

6. MAINTAIN THE DIALOGIC RELATIONSHIP:

Acknowledge the achievement of reaching a way to cooperate and support a common cause with agreed joint actions. Find out how to keep dialogue active, continue strengthening the new relationships and inspire others to spread positive change.

When implementing your interfaith dialogue, one way to stay on track – to learn from mistakes and successes and make adjustments when needed – is to consciously track how the dialogue is going. This practice, also known as monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), goes hand in hand with the theory of change. It adds to a project by clarifying the approach, rationale and goal and it requires a keen awareness of how to evaluate, including what methods to use and which indicators to monitor.

Evaluating the success of interfaith dialogue:

Research shows that dialogue contributes to positive social change and peacebuilding. However, evaluating the results of smaller dialogue initiatives can be challenging because:

• Results may be difficult to concretize and slower to emerge;

• Initiatives often involve a variety of parties, with dispersed accountability and multiple monitoring points; and

• To be effective, monitoring must capture change at different levels, including the:

• Activities implemented (the process)

• Effectiveness of the activities (performance)

• Outcomes

• Impact

Higher-level change from substantive partnerships between different individuals, organizations and institutions may be difficult to track in real time at another level without relevant, effective monitoring and adequate resources. This can make it difficult to recognize the effects of a certain activity or the initiative as a whole. Despite these difficulties, the evaluation process should not be skipped. Rather, we should acknowledge the challenges of MEL and use qualitative and quantitative methods to measure results, both tangible and intangible.

Interreligious dialogue can lead to numerous concrete outcomes. In a peacebuilding initiative, for example, the outcome could be the creation of new material or the improvement of existing material for peace-centered religious education, or the building of houses, shelters and schools or fresh research or literature. Activities that have the potential to contribute to peacebuilding and lead to tangible outcomes include joint interfaith work to counter hate speech, respond to health issues, reduce poverty and tackle climate change.

An increase in trust between two different religious or ethnic communities is an example of an intangible outcome. Such a result usually requires extensive joint collaborations in countering hate speech and developing common principles, aspirations and priorities through dialogue and related follow-up activities. These collaborative actions may increase encounters across cultural, ethnic or religious boundaries and create social capital, which could help reduce polarization between groups. These efforts may also lead to changes in discourse on social media or in broadcast news.

Key qualitative criteria for evaluating successes include focusing on changes in relationships, perceptions and beliefs while using narratives, stories and open-ended enquiries. To verify the cause and effect of such peacebuilding initiatives, it is necessary to have a plan and dedicated resources for monitoring and evaluation processes. This could include, for example, in-depth interviews with the target groups experiencing the changes. Such processes should consider monitoring, over time, the external factors that are not directly part of the dialogue process, such as activities by individuals, groups or organizations that may impact the political or peacebuilding context. Since there is no limit to how many of these factors there might be, monitoring should focus on key performance indicators that are integral to the success of the intervention, such as shifts in public opinion and media coverage of the issue.

Hear from Professor Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Professor of Peace and Conflict at American University, on the challenges that arise when implementing interfaith dialogue.

Implementing a dialogue initiative is not done in a day. Even though the dialogic approach involves moving the margins to the mainstream, many institutions and organizations still view dialogue and interfaith dialogue as an exception rather than a rule. Promoting dialogue can feel like an uphill task. It takes resources, determination and courage to build and cross bridges using dialogue. Being aware of these challenges allows for greater resilience when promoting dialogue.

Typical challenges when promoting dialogue include the following:

• Applying dialogue to contexts that are accustomed to debate can be met with resistance. For example, this might be the case in politics, where debate is the typical form of communication, and in educational systems dominated by assumptions that only one truth exists and the leader or teacher “is always right.” Working for change might be perceived as questioning the current system or troublemaking and could be viewed as a threat.

• Dialogue is perceived by some people as “fluffy” because it is sometimes considered intangible and difficult to measure. This is despite the major positive impact that dialogue can have on change and progress, largely an effect of the resulting mutual trust between parties.

• Resistance for dialogue is natural for us when our worldview and identity are challenged or when others try to persuade us.

Challenges when promoting interfaith dialogue may be tied to several circumstances, such as the following:

• The importance of a religious identity is perceived in various ways. Some people cherish religious identity within a certain faith group, although their degrees of commitment and practice may vary. Other people feel skepticism or even reluctance towards religion and find it hard to relate to. Some are not interested in the notion of religion or have more of a secular identity. 

• In some contexts, religion has a negative reputation. Throughout history, the misuse of religion has, sadly, contributed to human misery. Religious teachings have been exploited to provoke discrimination and incite violence or used by politicians as a tool for mobilizing support for war, exclusion or discriminatory practices.

• Religion is seen as part of the reason for tensions in society. Some people associate religion with conflict rather than peace. This may lead to a tendency to exclude faith leaders and faith-based organizations from important decision-making processes. Some societies proceed without an awareness of the importance of including religious or cultural minorities in important decisions.

• A lack of religious literacy or knowledge of other religions besides our own, especially when it comes to differences and similarities between various faith groups, can lead to lower trust and increased biases and suspicion between groups.

• Representation of those who participate may not be representative of the view or make up of the various communities. Intrafaith and interfaith dialogues can invite exclusion based on existing hierarchical and patriarchal structures and values.

• There may be language barriers between the various communities.

There are various ways to overcome these challenges, such as knowing your own trigger points to unpack why certain issues hit a nerve or using words of affirmation rather than negation or criticism. Whatever the challenge may be, it is important to keep an open and respectful environment.

Hear from three faith actors on how they approached interfaith dialogue in the United States after September 11, 2001. 

Source: Tedx Talks. “TEDxDU The Interfaith Amigos – Breaking the Taboos of Interfaith Dialogue.” May 26, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPnZArtsG_c.

• Helde, Mette Lindgren. “The Dialogue Handbook.” 2020. Danish Youth Council and Danish Centre for Conflict Resolution. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Dialogambassadoererne/DialogueHandbook__final-169600__1_.pdf.

• KAICIID and SCOUTS. “Building Bridges: Guide for Dialogue Ambassadors.’’ February, 2018. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/dialogue-peace-manual-guide-dialogue-ambassadors.

• KAICIID. “Guide to interreligious dialogue: Building differences and building sustainable societies.” 2021. https://www.kaiciid.org/publications-resources/guide-interreligious-dialogue.

• Karuna Center for Peacebuilding. “Community Dialogue Handbook.” 2018. https://www.karunacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ENG-KCP-community-dialogue-handbook-nonames.pdf.

• Mette Lindgren Helde. “The Dialogue Handbook - the art of conducting a dialogue and facilitating dialogue workshops.” 2012. https://duf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/documents/International/Publikationer/DialogHaandbog_UK_new.pdf.

• Pruitt, Bettye and Philip Thomas. “Democratic Dialogue - A Handbook for Practitioners.” 2007. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/democratic-dialogue-a-handbook-for-practitioners.pdf.

• Salek, Lucy. “Youth Preventing Violent Extremism in their Communities.” iDOVE. 2017. https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/iDove-Manual.pdf.

• Search for Common Ground. “Community Dialogue Design Manual.” 2017. https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CGI-Anglais-interactive.pdf.

• UN OHCHR. “#Faith4Rights Toolkit.” https://www.ohchr.org/en/faith-for-rights/faith4rights-toolkit.

• URI. “Interfaith Peacebuilding Guide.” June 7, 2017. https://www.uri.org/what-we-do/resource-library/interfaith-peacebuilding-guide.

Thank you for taking part in the PAVE Project’s Module 5 training module course. Click here to access and print your course certificate.