One of the things I like most about the field of conflict resolution, is the applicability it has to so many different aspects of our lives. I'm a firm believer that, while formal mediation may have rules and (perhaps) restrictions, the concepts that we are learning can be applied in a variety of ways. I'm not sure I completely agreed with everything in the article we read today, but I think that several of the author's points were spot on. Something I really enjoyed about the article was the challenge to my own definition of a 'mediator'--I had become focused on the more formal definition of that role, forgetting that prior to this program, we'd all probably taken on that role in one way or another.
It's probably easiest to first discuss the aspects of the article that I did not necessarily agree with the author on. While I think it's great to use popular culture (particularly film) as a means of showcasing the practices of negotiation and mediation as valid legal options, I do not agree that these examples are as practical in the real world. Yes, food does seem to bring people together, and I have no doubts that this might make conflicting ideas easier to discuss, but I feel like it simplifies the process. There is quite a bit of manipulation detailed in these films, and I'm not sure that it is always the best way to promote some sort of reconciliation. At what point does the mediator get to be the moral compass that drives the goals of the individuals involved in the dispute? What needs or 'harms' are potentially missed with this process?
That being said, I understand the motive of the article was to provide a metaphor that mediators can be compared to cooks in the types of roles they provide. This was intriguing to me, because I think it provides hope that conflict resolution practices can find their way into our everyday lives, in much less formal ways. It's exciting to think that these films provide tangible ways for people to recognize either what they are already doing to provide positive conflict interactions, or what they can easily begin to do in their lives. Many of the things we have read throughout this course are things I would consider to be a bit more 'common sense', but often, if they are not pointed out, we don't actually utilize those skills. I like that Schulz laid out the 5 mediations styles: deceptive, magical, instinctive, scientific, and co-mediation. For some reason, being able to label them, has caused me to reflect on which of those practices I have used in my everyday life, both intentionally and unintentionally. I'm not sure that it is as easy to remove my own opinions and motives from a dispute, going back to the questions I posed in the previous paragraph. (It's both difficult and helpful to have that small bit of self-reflection haha.) I also really enjoyed that the author uses this metaphor as a means of highlighting the positive sides of conflict resolution, and providing a way for others to potentially understand the goals of mediation in a different way. As we all know, a single word can change the entire tone of a conversation. Knowing that, we (as future professionals in the field) can use all the positive language we can get!
Essentially, even though I felt like there were aspects of the article that were a bit idealistic for practical application of mediation in day to day life, I really enjoyed that it challenged my understanding of how a "mediator" can be defined. There are formal and informal roles that can be taken on and, as long as there is a balance of several of the mediation styles, I think that it is something that can be taught on a societal level. A school of thought that could drastically change our profession.
Feelings about the reading, reactions, comments, questions welcome!
I agree that the term mediator takes on many different aspects that I do not typically consider. Even after just barely two weeks of class I am already starting to identify conflicts and resolution types in different scenarios I see. This is tangentially related because it is about cooking, but I was watching Master Chef earlier and there was a huge fight between two chefs (I’m not giving more information than that for fear of a spoiler alert fiasco). Gordon Ramsay pulled them aside and gave them an ultimatum that if they did not start working well together they would both be eliminated. This is, obviously, not a neutral mediator stance, but it was interesting to see how effective that tactic worked. Sometimes mediators (in the non-traditional sense) have to be forceful in order to resolve conflicts between others that may not see that they are being distracted by the minute issue instead of focusing on the main goal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you in that there is a need for a different approach by the 'mediator' in different situations, formal and informal. I think the idea of the mediator is that part that sustains throughout the various situations. The idea that someone outside of the conflicting individuals intervenes in a constructive way to help the parties resolve their conflict. I also want to comment specifically on Lili's comment regarding the simplicity of the aspect of food in mediation or conflict management. I think sometimes it is necessary to simplify conflict management because a lot of times these conflicts start from a simple place. Which reminds me of the chapters we had to read in the Social Conflict book on escalation, although it is very easy for conflict to escalate because of many factors, I think sometimes a realization on behalf of the involved parties regarding the basis of their conflict is a great way to begin managing the conflict at hand. Specifically in the situation of the movie Soul Food, I think food did not resolve the conflict but I think it managed it by allowing the family members to remember their relationship as a family and to refocus their attention on that aspect rather than the conflict. This way, they were able to resolve their conflicts from a more constructive and united place.
ReplyDeleteI remembered the following excerpts enough to go back and look for them in the "Stories Mediators Tell" book. Page 63 talks about the 2nd mediation and the careful planning surrounding the event. The location and style of the facility..."represented an investment in the resolution. The facility was perfect...meals, drinks, and snacks were available throughout the day. Breakfast was served when the parties arrived. A nutritious and tasty lunch buffet was available at 11:45 a.m. Warm chocolate chip cookies and fruit appeared in the afternoon."
ReplyDeleteI remember thinking how the careful choices of food would support the sense of caring even beyond the resolution. Food is a comfort to many of us. Healthy food would impress me more than plates of sweet muffins and starchy foods. This story didn't connect the mediator or mediation to the food specifically but the presence of the food was important in the creation of the environment and their "investment" in the resolution.
Lili, you make an interesting point about the mediators in the films being manipulative. When I first read the article, I really liked it. I liked thinking about mediation in a new way, in a different environment. Instead of a stuffy, office meeting room, I imagined a kitchen emanating some enticing aroma. Instead of an uncomfortable, and sometimes traumatic, experience between two strangers and their lawyers, I thought of a warm and welcoming family, sharing a meal together. The thought of food always seems to evoke those feelings for me. But, food feelings aside, I too noticed that these particular examples in the article involved mediators being manipulative. It did not seem that these mediators were neutral third parties, but were, in fact, pushing their own agenda. Yes, the overall results were positive in that the community in Chocolat came together, and the families in Soul Plane and Mostly Martha were reunited. However, it is not the mediator's place to push cooperation. From what we have learned so far, the actors in mediation should voluntarily consent to the process. Sometimes, mediation is not the best strategy and parties are better left to themselves to sort things out, if they so choose. But, seeing as Vianne, Ahmad, and Martha are not professional mediators, I guess we can ignore the fact that they are not neutral, and focus instead on the positive ways they affect those around them.
ReplyDeleteI also liked what you said about things in our readings being “common sense.” I admit that I have had similar thoughts while reading, but I agree that we are more likely to behave in certain ways if we are consciously made aware of our behavior. When we learned about different conflict management styles, escalation, and even certain mediation tactics, it seemed like most of it was “common sense.” But, throughout this term, I have begun to observe more clearly the behavioral aspects of others and myself. The more I am aware of different interactions, the more I notice myself actively behaving in certain ways. I wonder how many other “common sense” things we take for granted.
Lili, I would like to ask you this, why do we associate Conflict and Dispute only to mediation? It is my belief that mediation is another form of counseling and deals more with emotions. Therefore, what is the significances of a mediator or a mediation process, especially to a person who is concerned with winning? Does it really allow me to win or only to be appeased? You made a point about mediators being manipulative and unbiased, so should mediators have an institutionalized code for "good faith"? Should they be licensed? Just a couple of questions that arose while reading your article.
ReplyDeleteHumanity has a long history of using food and mealtime as a form of dispute resolution. As the Schulz article expressed, terms like “breaking bread” serve as prominent metaphors within our society. Practices such as communion or the Seder meal are not only important practices within their respective religions, but are also globally-recognized practices of peaceful community building.
ReplyDeleteThe art of storytelling as a way of communicating social norms through generations of people developed around the first cooking fires. The development of agriculture as a primary food source created the need for an organized community, and therefore the need to solve conflicts that arose within those communities. Ceremonial meals at weddings, memorials, and holidays are also times of great social bonding and dispute resolution (and occasionally dispute escalation, I suppose).