In times of political controversy or social crisis, institutions often adopt a familiar stance: neutrality. They withhold judgment, issue carefully crafted non-statements, or defer to procedure. These responses are framed as prudent, objective, even professional. But behind the language of restraint lies a deeper strategy—the deliberate avoidance of blame.
This article explores what we might call institutional non-positioning—the conscious refusal to commit—as a potent form of political behavior. Rather than standing apart from politics, neutrality functions as politics: a way to maintain legitimacy, manage risk, and sidestep accountability. Using the lens of problematization, we examine how neutrality performs its quiet work, and why it should no longer be mistaken for impartiality…
Enjoying the read? Subscribe to my Substack to get full access to this article and future posts delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay curious.