MEDIATION - PART TWO: the navigation through rough waters

In the first part of this series, I talked about my practical experiences and the method of mediation in the context of separating parents. Before I take a closer look at the individual steps in the process of mediation, here are some examples of historical and prehistoric applications:

A primordial form of mediation concerns the mediation of shamans and priests in contact with the overpowering world of gods or spirits. Christianity relies on concepts such as guilt, forgiveness, and reconciliation at the level of the church as well as in ethnic conflicts and major political upheavals.

The prehistory of mediation also includes the old tradition of dispute resolution between actors powerful to dispute, mediated by respected third parties, without this being explicitly referred to as mediation. An example of this is the reconciliation between a ruler and a rival or insurgent, those sentenced to death or deprived by intercession of a bishop, as documented for the Merovingian period. In pre-state times, in particular the averting of blood vengeance between neighbouring clans by means of fines represented a collective preform of today's individual perpetrator-victim compensation. Even the late Middle Ages provided for agreements of atonement to avert the death and corporal punishments prevailing at that time.

^{source: wiki (translated from German)}

I would like to emphasize that, although this practice seems barbaric at the present time, it was valid for those in history. A basic condition must, therefore, have been that this regulation has brought satisfaction to all those involved and to the spectators. Once satisfaction had been achieved, everyone could return to their paths.

A special type of mediation

A controversial special form of mediation in Germany is shuttle mediation (also known as pendulum mediation), such as that used by Jimmy Carter in the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations in Camp David in 1978. Here, the mediator negotiates with the parties in a confidential individual meeting, also known as caucus. Especially if the parties are in dispute and if the later harmony is not in the foreground, shuttle mediation can be the most suitable procedure.

Here and here you can read about the Camp David Accords if you are interested, as well as in this PDF-file.

The conceptual basics of mediation include

• the Harvard concept as a negotiation technique,
• the search for consensus as a universal principle,
• the escalation of conflict after Friedrich Glasl.

I will deal with the principle of consensus building as well as parts of Glasls concept.

How to navigate through a mediation process? Here the steps:

1. Order clarification:

The parties are informed about the mediation procedure, the role and attitude of the mediator (see previous article on impartiality as the most important aspect). For conflict mediation, an agreement is reached and the further procedure is coordinated.

2. Collection of themes:

At the beginning of the second phase, the parties present their issues and concerns in connection with each other. This offers the possibility to collect and structure them. A rather important point not to lose the thread.

3. Recognizing positions and interests/backgrounds:

This is where the actual problem solving takes place. The parties involved will be given the opportunity to describe their views and present them in a comprehensive way. Information, data, and perceptions are exchanged. At this stage, it is important that it should move from the current position to the interest behind it. However, this bridge can hardly be built without clarifying the conflict. The parties must recognize each other's conflict. Solutions are also an issue at this stage, always from the individual's point of view. Later it will be examined whether the respective approach to a solution is at all one (or maybe even created a new problem) and is capable of consensus for both parties.

Example: I as Madeleine have the position that Bernard is disinterested and selfish in his fatherly role. I don't think he has the right to introduce our child to his new girlfriend. The interest behind this, however, is not to have control of Bernard, but to know that the child is well off. For an inexperienced or anxious mediator, this is certainly a very difficult phase if he or she runs the risk of losing his or her impartiality. That's because at this phase, emotions can fly high.

4. Collecting and evaluating solution options

This is where the creative phase begins. The parties brainstormed proposals for solutions. This is done without a valuation of the same. Only after the collection of ideas has been completed will they be evaluated and negotiated by the medians. The mediator will slow down premature decisions. He asks the parties concerned whether the proposals are in line with the interests identified above and the criteria for a fair solution. Furthermore, the mediator asks about the feasibility of solutions in everyday life.

Example: I as Bernard suggest that the daughter is being cared by me for four days a week. This is due to my willingness to bear my share of responsibility. However, it is clear that I have neither the capacity nor the necessary structural means (for example, no own room for my daughter) and that I would have to reduce my working hours. Even if Madeleine would like to respond quickly to this solution in principle, this is something that has to be checked for the aspect of real implementation.

5. Closing agreement

Here the results are recorded (preferably in writing). The concrete regulation of the further course of action, including the setting of deadlines for implementation, has proved its worth. Just as the behavior in future conflicts is determined.

Mediation seeks the greatest possible benefit for all parties. Compromises - a term often is used in this regard - are often not even suitable for everyday use, as described above. They can be unconsciously based on the desire to make quick peace and subsequently turn out to be enemies of the agreement.

The role of the mediator is not to be responsible for the outcome of the process, but to take responsibility for its course. At no time should the mediator want to exert influence and tend to this or that solution or manipulate the mediants in this way. This does not apply to immoral or unlawful agreements. The mediator is called upon to ensure that none of the parties are disadvantaged.

What are the advantages of such mediation?

• on an ethical level: it's more healthy to come to an agreement and having the experience of mutual understanding and not having burdened the close and not so close social environment with a conflict. Serving as good role models for all who witness the process of the couple.

• on a personal level: If the conflicted parties feel that it was their own decision to take up mediation and then use it fully for themselves, they make the positive experience that it is a sign of maturity to let themselves be helped in the event of conflict and to experience the positive consequences of their actions. Even possible negative consequences are seen against this background of experience rather in the own responsibility. The precondition is that they have experienced the whole process as de-escalating and once understood the position and attitude of the other party without having to believe that they now have to adopt the same attitude.

• on a society level: to prevent going to court is a huge favor for the whole of society. Imagine the numbers lessening if all divorcing parents would go through counseling or mediation first. Court should take place if all other possibilities were exhausted. Mostly, people do not realize that lawyers and the judge won't speak what they think is right but what the law is capable of. When you think that law never can indeed comprehend the situation on a deep individual level, you can see the difficulty in a court process. Also, a lawyer has to take the party of his client and does not go for the interest of the other party.

• on an economic level: what can be saved beforehand can then be taken for other projects and purposes. The couple which can spend their finances on constructive matters as well as for themselves as for the common care-taking of their child. Courts and lawyers will be lifted from millions of individual cases and the tax money can go to something else.

Those advantages are my personal view. But I can imagine, I am not the only one seeing it that way.

What would you say to and about a couple which comes out of a mediation process and finds their way along in space and time without having you dragged into a nasty conflict and the possible feeling of shame afterwards that you were not able to withstand?

That does not mean that everything is going to be happy go lucky. Challenges will be still there to be taken up.

Some last words about "conflict“.

Which is obviously the cause for needing a mediation.
You can compare a conflict with an iceberg. Only a small amount of the iceberg is visible, the rest is under water. The bigger part which is under water represents the size and "behavior" of the mountain. Direct access to a conflict gives the part above sea level, the part underneath has, therefore, to be explored and unfolded. You can distinguish these parts into the rational level and the psycho-social level.

Facts are the rational tip of the iceberg, anxieties, emotions, tabus, and insecurities are not directly to observe. They remain hidden "under-water", are not communicated and work their forces from the secret realm. The more a conflict escalates the higher those forces come into play and gain weight. To make the matter negotiable the mediator has to pull these dynamics into sight.

Thank you for reading!

---

^{Text sources:}

<sup>- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
- https://www.thoughtco.com/what-were-the-camp-david-accords-of-1978-2352823
- Harvard concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_Yes
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Glasl%27s_model_of_conflict_escalation</sup>

<sup>- understanding conflict:
http://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/1017981/7110680/3-Understandingconflict.pdf/0f63c846-6942-4e8f-83c0-3626f2f73dfa
- the iceberg model:
http://www.londonleadershipacademy.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/uploaded/Introduction%20to%20the%20Iceberg%20model_FINAL_25%2003%202015.pdf</sup>

^Literature:

<sup>- Burton, John. (ed.) 1990: Conflict: Human Needs Theory (vol. 2 of the Conflict Series). London: Macmillan.
- Fisher, Roger and Ury, William. 1981: Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Galtung, Johan. 1996: Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: Sage.</sup>

---

^{Picture sources:}

^{Boxing: Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash
Navigation: Photo by Himesh Kumar Behera on Unsplash
Under Water: Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash}

---