2007 Bridge Builders Conference:

A Grassroots Agenda for Change

Who is a Bridge Builder?

Indigenous peoples have developed strategies and tools to help them alter structural asymmetry and to "level the playing field" as they negotiate or otherwise avail themselves of opportunities presented by national or international groups, institutions, and governments. However, issues not only between stakeholders but also within stakeholder groups - such as local communitiesÑcomplicate development projects and often lead to their collapse. Bridge buildersÑthe rare individuals who effectively articulate interests and communicate conflictsÑreduce misinterpretation and misdirected accusations. They cultivate solidarity within and between stakeholders involved in international development, grassroots organizing, and social justice movements. They are the leaders of this century.

Bridge-building characteristics converge around a central notion: bridge builders are those who work to empower all parties to come closer together in communication, understanding, and solidarity. For instance, if a bridge builder were to disappear, ideally, the bridges he or she has made would not disintegrate. A bridge builder does not attempt to "maintain" his or her "power" or "position" as a bridge, but rather to shorten the distance between people, bringing them together until his or her role in bridging "worlds" is no longer needed. In this way, and unlike a "broker," a bridge builder does not leverage leadership that he or she has not earned, and actually becomes a more respected leader for not doing so.

Along these lines, the capacity to communicate with the "outside" world is central to the notion of bridge-building. Yet, as suggested, this ability can create mistrust, suspicion, or an imbalance of power within an indigenous community, since a bridge builder could potentially use his or her "gate-keeping" position for personal gain. Indeed, the more a bridge builder navigates the "outside" world, the greater his or her ability to manipulate stakeholders. Thus, it is the way that a bridge builder navigates his or her position, the way in which he or she articulates other people's positions, that makes him or her an effective bridge builder. In this sense, an effective bridge builder is able distinguish the line between supporting his or her own interests and supporting those of stakeholders.

This is just one tension within the complex notion of bridge-building. Many other questions and tensions pertain to the subject. Specifically, when does a bridge builder run the risk of becoming a "broker"? How does one avoid leveraging power? (Or perhaps better put, when and how is it appropriate or inappropriate to leverage power?) When and how is "organic" empowerment corrupted? How do conference participants identify and avoid such corruption? How do they manage to stand on one side of a bridge without breaking their connections to other side? Do they lose internal legitimacy if they overemphasize communication with "outside" stakeholders, or lose external efficacy if they overemphasize communication with "inside" stakeholders? To what degree does individual virtue play a part, and to what degree is social pressure to conform and gain acceptance within stakeholder groups a motivating force? What are the qualities of a "bridge builder"?