There were two topics in class that we briefly discussed that I would like to encourage further reflection upon. The first is the interaction between morality and dispute resolution. It is important to recognize that morality is a part of culture and people are very deeply immersed into their culture. As a society, we have compiled the morals that guide our legal system. Morality is not just a religious concept, it is the distinction between good and bad that guide human behaviors. They determine if society will view a behavior as good or bad. Some basic examples that everyone in our society can agree upon are that rape is bad, murder is bad, child pornography is bad. These are extreme examples but they are some of the clearest and most difficult to argue as being good. There are a lot of grey areas of what is right and wrong. This is part of what leads to conflicts and disputes. The law is a compilation of society's morals. In a mediation, the mediator has an obligation to report abuse to elders or children and legitimate threats to harm others. This is a moral and legal obligation. Parties are not always going to share the same morals and it is a dance that has to be danced by all parties to find a resolution.
The second topic was that of saving face. I didn't hear anyone point out that face is not something that we possess. Our "face" is how others view us and we can not directly change or control it. All we can do is feebly attempt to control it and make it reflect our self the way that we want. Saving face is the attempt to keep others from changing the way that they look at you. Face is in the public domain and is very important to us, despite the fact that most people like to believe it isn't. Saving face is mostly connected with negative things. We don't say things that are rude or mean because we don't want others to view us as mean or rude, thus saving face. The chief could have possibly not wanted to apologize because he didn't want others to view him as weak, which was perceived as hurting his face. This is a very interesting topic and should always be at the back of our mind as we work with people who are engaged in a dispute or conflict.
I concur that as a society we create a set of basic morals and norms. Yet there are more grey areas than it may seem. Most people will openly agree that rape, murder, incest, and child pornography are all immoral acts. Yet none of these are so immoral as to being taboo. Instances of rape and murder occur on a daily basis in our society. Most anyone that would wish to not be considered a sociopath would decry these acts , yet even some of the most respected citizens have at times been guilty of such acts. I guess my point is that, even though morals are, quite often, agreed upon or set by a society, it doesn't really mean that people live up to those morals. So what really is good and/or bad. Existentially, "the good" is being able to do whatever one wants as long as you aren't hurting another being. Yet even what is harmful is subjective.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEllis, you bring up a good point about some not following the moral norm of the society they are in. It is assumed that there will be outliers in every population. However, the presence of these outliers does not make the their actions moral.
ReplyDeleteThe acts that you mention are actually taboo. That is why they are illegal. Taboo means to be prohibited by either laws or customs. I think I get your point though; even though they are considered by our society to be immoral, many people still do them. These acts have not been eradicated by society's morals.
Alyssa, interesting subject. Thank you for your reflection on these topics that I had not thought deeper about. You bring up some good points about morals, and I enjoyed your post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I don't see an "edit comment" button so I deleted it, edited it and re-published it)
ReplyDeleteOn page 350 of the class reading "Litigation as a Dispute Resolution Alternative”; In the first section "Litigation from a Social Perspective" Seul states,” litigation...is the primary means by which society's moral values are developed and articulated”. He continues, “Litigation…creates well-publicized norms that contribute to social stability..”
This opposes the idea that society creates the morals by which laws are made. I think it’s a mixture of the two but what he says is interesting.
I shy away from making statements that speak for others, such as “ ‘everyone’ in our society can agree on xyz”. I can’t talk to every individual in our society to know what society believes. Could capital punishment be 1st degree murder (well planned?) but society is divided on who should die and who shouldn’t. Examples of conflicting morals are endless.
This means awesome job security for all of us : )
Sorry about all the deletes, I was replying in the wrong spots. I'm still trying to figure this whole blog-thing out.
DeleteAll of the above posts on morals and normative behaviors have meritorious points. That is the nature of the subject matter. Of all subjective grey areas, agreeing on what is right/wrong or good/bad is possibly the most difficult to navigate. Add the ingredient of ethics and we really have a spaghetti bowl of opinions. I grew up hearing the ironic saying, “Never say ‘never’ or ‘always.’” Remembering that has served me well, as it applies to virtually every situation. However, I think this area is one exception. Our society will never collectively agree on one set of norms, morals, ethics, values, and beliefs that are considered good and bad/ right and wrong. The idea of such agreement smacks of Utopia, which frankly I think would be boring. And like Michelle said, we’d be out of a job if everyone agreed.
Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, every person in society agreed on one set of rights and wrongs, it does not necessarily mean everyone would abide by them or act accordingly. Individuals’ actions are contextual and often guided by emotion and situational ethics. This is something we all have to keep in mind going into this field. We are routinely going to be in situations where one or both parties’ actions at the heart of the conflict, goes against their own set of values, or our own personal belief systems. That is something we have to learn to work out and set aside, in order to create an environment of acceptance for our clients: give them the opportunity to express their voice without judgment. Not all conflict is negative; depending on the manner of how one makes others aware of conflict, and the resolution of said conflict, it can result in positive change. That’s what’s so exciting about the idea of ADR, we can turn negative conflict into positive change.
I am interested in the claim that we do not possess the "face" referred to in "saving face" -- this makes me think about the identity and voice conversations that we had this past week. How much of our own identity/face/voice is "controlled" by us, and how much is determined by others (or, maybe more precisely, how we think others are thinking)?
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider along these lines, as you think about designing dispute resolution systems: part of the reason that mediation is set up as a confidential meeting is so that people can be more honest, because they know that what they say is not going to be reportable to others. In this way, mediation creates a space for "saving face" insofar as it's a more private setting for apologies, admissions of regret, etc. In the movie, there was no such privacy -- when Qiu Ju talked with the chief, they were always in someone's house or outside, which didn't afford much private space. Plus there was no apparent norm that she would have kept an apology to herself. Then again, maybe it wouldn't have been as meaningful if it would have been private.
Anyway, it's important to think about these dynamics around conflicting morals and face-saving when coming up with a dispute resolution process. A good process needs to be able to allow for such conflicts while creating opportunities for the participants to understand one another better.