Excuse the interlude while I’ve been in Greece. My internet connection to the blog is blocked by the place I’m working….

Came across a particularly felicitous post on mediate.com a few days ago: Michael Jacobs on Finding Common Ground. Felicitous because his ideas are thought-provoking AND he presents them eloquently (what is it in England’s water that makes so may Brits excellent writers?).

It’s true that looking for mutual interests can often end you up with smushy generalized statements “of course you both love little Suzy and want the best for her”, when the combattants disputants are acutely aware of and furious about their differences.

Not only is Jacobs right that exploring differences brings the conversation down to the ground of specifics, from a negotiation perspective, identifying differences is useful also. When parties have somewhat different needs and resources there’s more room for trading off or sharing. It’s easier to assign workshifts when one person prefers weekends and the other week nights. It’s easier to work as a team when each member has their own expertise.

The reason we look for “common ground” is mostly because we know that if you like or empathize with someone, you’re more disposed to accommodate them. No wonder disputing parties resist any suggestions that they are simliar to the other side.

Anthropologists know that “differences” are what help people define and protect their sense of identity–as individuals and as members of groups. WE aren’t like THEM! Group Q will focus inordinately and gleefully on the differences and grievances between them and Group X (which to an outsider looks a LOT like Group Q, hence the need to reinforce those differences).

Don’t know if any of these thoughts will make it into the Handbook but it’s interesting to think about. Maybe in the discussion of interests and mutual goals and laying out options.