Neutral-Site Relationship Convening
Use shared learning and privacy to rebuild relationships across hostile groups
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
The framework treats a compelling educational event as the social bridge between disconnected or antagonistic groups. Conveners select a neutral location, invite a respected expert, offer hospitality, and create a structured interview or discussion around a topic participants genuinely want to explore. Attendance does not require anyone to endorse the opposing side, making initial participation safer. Limiting performative pressures—such as cameras or opportunistic press coverage—allows participants to ask questions and talk informally without every interaction becoming a political signal. Repeated gatherings then create familiarity across institutional, partisan, or departmental boundaries. The intended output is not instant consensus but stronger relationships, greater understanding, and a renewed capacity for constructive communication.
Origin
At the Library of Congress, Rubenstein convened members of both parties and both houses for private dinners featuring interviews with prominent historians, creating a recurring setting for cross-party contact.
Core principles
- 01Create contact before demanding agreement
- 02Use a neutral site to reduce symbolic threat
- 03Give participants a shared reason to attend
- 04Protect exploratory conversation from public performance
- 05Mix structured learning with informal interaction
How to run it
- 1
Map the relationship gap
Identify groups that rarely interact despite sharing responsibility for important outcomes.
Pro tip Look beyond visible ideological divisions to structural separations between departments, institutions, or ranks.
Watch out Do not assume disagreement is the only barrier; participants may simply lack opportunities to meet.
- 2
Choose a neutral setting
Host the event somewhere neither group controls and that all participants can enter comfortably.
Pro tip A respected civic, educational, or professional institution can signal common ownership.
Watch out A venue associated with one faction can reinforce suspicion.
- 3
Provide a substantive draw
Invite a credible expert or create a learning experience valuable enough to justify attendance independently of the relationship-building goal.
Pro tip Choose a topic adjacent to the conflict rather than making the conflict itself the opening agenda.
Watch out A contrived topic will make participants feel manipulated.
- 4
Reduce performance pressure
Limit unnecessary publicity so participants can interact without worrying that ordinary conversation will be weaponized.
Pro tip Clearly state confidentiality and attribution rules before the event.
Watch out Privacy must not be used to conceal wrongdoing or bypass required transparency.
- 5
Blend structure and conversation
Use an interview or presentation to establish shared attention, then let participants ask questions and speak informally.
Pro tip Hospitality can create natural transitions between formal and personal interaction.
Watch out An entirely scripted event will not produce meaningful relationships.
- 6
Repeat the contact
Hold gatherings consistently so isolated encounters develop into familiarity and trust.
Pro tip Track participation across groups to prevent the event from becoming another factional gathering.
Watch out Do not judge success solely by immediate policy agreement.
In the wild
Members of Congress from different parties and houses attended dinners at the Library of Congress. Rubenstein interviewed historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, and Ken Burns; members then asked questions and interacted without press coverage turning each conversation into a partisan signal.
→ The gatherings repeatedly attracted large bipartisan audiences and gave participants an unusual opportunity to understand colleagues from the other side.
Common mistakes
Making reconciliation the sales pitch
Participants may resist an event framed as an attempt to change their beliefs; a valuable shared topic creates a safer entry point.
Confusing privacy with secrecy
Reducing performative pressure is useful, but the gathering must still respect ethical and legal transparency requirements.
Expecting one dinner to solve conflict
The mechanism depends on repeated contact and relationship formation, not a single dramatic breakthrough.
Is it for you?
Best for
Organizations or communities where polarization and public scrutiny prevent ordinary cross-group conversation.
Not ideal for
Situations requiring formal negotiation, public accountability, or immediate resolution of a concrete dispute.
From the transcript
“if I had a dinner at a neutral site, the Library of Congress, and members of Congress can come there through underground tunnel so they…”
“This gives them a chance to come together in a setting that no press person can see.”
“The theory is that if you get people talking to each other and they're not yelling at each other all the time, it better for…”
From the episode
Entrepreneurship, the American Presidency, and Baseball with David Rubenstein
David Rubenstein