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.

My reply to William Kaplan’s comment on the previous post about conflict being fun, living, and natural spilled over into several paragraphs, so I’ll post it here as a separate entry.

+++

Eileen always said people who enjoy fomenting conflict make the best mediators ….And she would linger long and deliciously over the word f o m e n t.

But back to the disputing parties, most rarely think they’re having fun or appreciating experiencing LIFE at its most natural…. Are you saying that mediators can retain a sense of relaxed perspective on other people’s conflicts if they treat it as a natural & lively drama?

I like using the conflict-is-a-drama theme when I teach — describing negotiation/mediation as a choreographed moment when the parties come together on the stage, interacting for the edification or amusement of a larger (if invisible) audience.

I’m inclined to talk about this later in the “culture” section. Dramatic presentations of conflict and the process of resolution are are used to claim and define identity. “Can you believe that he did X?” “Professionals don’t behave like Y.” The conflict is part of a larger group’s “conversations” about how people should fight, what they feel justified in fighting ABOUT, who has a claim, and how disputes are “resolved” (or not). All the stages of conflict, from casual complaints and gossip through shunning or killing are ways a community works out who belongs, how they are different from other groups, who has authority and status, what issues and principles are important. It’s like watching a local soap opera.

It’s useful for mediators to 1) understand that they’re the producers (rather than the directors) of a dramatic moment and disputants will behave with their imagined audiences in mind, and 2) these dramas are culturally and identity-specific, both in terms of the process people expect to follow, and their criteria for proper resolution, and 3) as William and Eileen would suggest, to relish the “aliveness” of the comedy and tragedy being played out around the table rather than being freaked out about whether the mediators can keep a lid on.

Fun stuff. Not sure how much to put in the Handbook.

[*Eileen Stief, co-author]

Longtime colleague William Kaplan called out of the blue yesterday and I joined him at the mostly air-conditioned Lansdowne’s local Regency Cafe. Sipped a vanilla Italian soda for a wide ranging leisurely chat about our work. Ah summer!

I promised to send him the rewritten “understanding conflict” pages and will post the conflict section here so all of you can comment.

Ideally, we’ll condense these to just three pithy pages of text, three of illustration. At the moment it spills over. A few pages on negotiation theory basics will follow this section. Most other info about conflict and resolution belongs either on a more extensive web page, or in another book.

The question is, what do we absolutely need to say about conflict in order to help *mediators* think clearly — their attitude towards the parties, the way they assess the situation?

Note that I haven’t yet created the new handwritten layer for the spiral graphic. As in the previous edition, it will show the “mess”, starting with the self, a escalating outward to interpersonal, group, organization, society.

About Conflict (PDF).

Most of what I’ve posted so far has to do with words.   Each word we choose will channel the mediator-reader’s attention and understanding in a particular direction. This is good, we want the words to do that.

The more you know, the harder it is to pick the “best” word — because each word has its own cluster of associations and meanings, and those never map exactly onto real life experience.

Why sweat it?  Well, writing is really the process of THINKING. (That’s why writing is hard work.)   This rewrite is a chance to RETHINK.   Where are the words we’ve been using to structure a mediator’s attention and thought, what mood do they create, what associations do they imply?

Fortunately, writing is also a process of making decisions — hundreds of decisions small and large.  So write me your opinions soon, before I bite the bullet and set these choices into print!