Our Nation"s Struggle With Conflict - Could Mediation Make a Difference?
In late 2012 two events that blasted our airwaves - the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, and the Congressional debacle over the Fiscal Cliff - led me to ponder our nation's struggle with conflict.
While the two events were entirely different, both could be seen as a clarion call for a radically different approach to conflict in our culture.
Our culture does not promote effective conflict resolution.
In fact, most of us don't learn effective conflict management techniques in schools or in our families.
If we learn anything at all, it is to either stay away from conflict - a technique that is ineffective in the long run and usually leads to brewing resentment - or to approach conflict head-on with the gloves pulled off.
This latter technique is taught on t.
v and in movies where the angry hero or heroine blasts into the boss's office screaming and yelling.
In that magical movie world an angry blast succeeds and the heroine gets her way - but the sad reality is that full blown anger and blame are ineffective and damaging to relationships and often cause the conflict to escalate.
Could a different approach to conflict have made a difference in the case of Sandy Hook and in the case of Congressional stalemates? Certainly, a greater understanding of conflict resolution tools could help all of us, and might even reduce bullying in schools.
Whether it could have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting is at best unclear.
But what about mediation - could mediation have made a difference at Sandy Hook or in Congress? To clarify the term mediation, in this process the mediator does not decide the matter, but rather assists the parties to understand their respective interests and helps them create a solution that meets those interests.
In addition, a skilled mediator is able to reduce tension and acrimony so that the parties can better listen and understand rather than point fingers and blame.
In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting - while the details of the shooter's life are still limited - it is clear that the shooter was a troubled and angry young man in need of help.
While both greater access to mental health services and stricter gun control might have made a difference here, a culture that teaches and promotes a collaborative and non-combative approach to conflict might also have made a difference, especially if made available early enough.
Dewey Cornell, a psychologist from the University of Virginia and professor of education noted after the Connecticut shooting that our country needs to make both counseling and mediation services more available and that "we have got to start before [conflict] escalates into a violent situation.
And if we can provide these services more generally, we will have a healthier society and we will have fewer of those cases that rise to this extreme, unusual level.
" PBS News Hour 12/14/12.
The Fiscal Cliff debacle also led me to think about our nation's troubled approach to conflict because it appears to be a performance played out on the national stage in "how not to deal with conflict.
" Both parties used finger pointing, blaming, and gamesmanship to reach their goals, yet neither party got what it wanted out of the final deal.
The Republicans accused Democrats of wanting to bankrupt the country, and the Democrats accused the Republicans of protecting the rich.
While these characterizations of the motivations of each party might or might not be accurate, they distracted the country and the two parties from what really needed to be discussed: the interests at stake, and what proposals would meet those interests.
Could mediation have made a difference here? One can't be sure, and maybe the halls of Congress are just not made for mediation.
And yet...
two years ago the Washington Post published an op-ed piece which proposed just such an idea.
Michael Hager, former director general of the International Development Law Organization in Rome suggested that "[w]hen senators or representatives find themselves locked into irreconcilable positions on issues of national importance, third-party mediation could help overcome a stalemate.
What if Congress were to establish a politically neutral service for legislative mediation, organized along the lines of the Congressional Budget Office?" (Washington Post, 6/18/10) Although such a mediation program could not possibly act as a panacea for all that ails Washington, or this country, perhaps it could at the very least reduce the acrimony we see in Congress and present a more positive model for conflict resolution than we see in Washington today.
While the two events were entirely different, both could be seen as a clarion call for a radically different approach to conflict in our culture.
Our culture does not promote effective conflict resolution.
In fact, most of us don't learn effective conflict management techniques in schools or in our families.
If we learn anything at all, it is to either stay away from conflict - a technique that is ineffective in the long run and usually leads to brewing resentment - or to approach conflict head-on with the gloves pulled off.
This latter technique is taught on t.
v and in movies where the angry hero or heroine blasts into the boss's office screaming and yelling.
In that magical movie world an angry blast succeeds and the heroine gets her way - but the sad reality is that full blown anger and blame are ineffective and damaging to relationships and often cause the conflict to escalate.
Could a different approach to conflict have made a difference in the case of Sandy Hook and in the case of Congressional stalemates? Certainly, a greater understanding of conflict resolution tools could help all of us, and might even reduce bullying in schools.
Whether it could have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting is at best unclear.
But what about mediation - could mediation have made a difference at Sandy Hook or in Congress? To clarify the term mediation, in this process the mediator does not decide the matter, but rather assists the parties to understand their respective interests and helps them create a solution that meets those interests.
In addition, a skilled mediator is able to reduce tension and acrimony so that the parties can better listen and understand rather than point fingers and blame.
In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting - while the details of the shooter's life are still limited - it is clear that the shooter was a troubled and angry young man in need of help.
While both greater access to mental health services and stricter gun control might have made a difference here, a culture that teaches and promotes a collaborative and non-combative approach to conflict might also have made a difference, especially if made available early enough.
Dewey Cornell, a psychologist from the University of Virginia and professor of education noted after the Connecticut shooting that our country needs to make both counseling and mediation services more available and that "we have got to start before [conflict] escalates into a violent situation.
And if we can provide these services more generally, we will have a healthier society and we will have fewer of those cases that rise to this extreme, unusual level.
" PBS News Hour 12/14/12.
The Fiscal Cliff debacle also led me to think about our nation's troubled approach to conflict because it appears to be a performance played out on the national stage in "how not to deal with conflict.
" Both parties used finger pointing, blaming, and gamesmanship to reach their goals, yet neither party got what it wanted out of the final deal.
The Republicans accused Democrats of wanting to bankrupt the country, and the Democrats accused the Republicans of protecting the rich.
While these characterizations of the motivations of each party might or might not be accurate, they distracted the country and the two parties from what really needed to be discussed: the interests at stake, and what proposals would meet those interests.
Could mediation have made a difference here? One can't be sure, and maybe the halls of Congress are just not made for mediation.
And yet...
two years ago the Washington Post published an op-ed piece which proposed just such an idea.
Michael Hager, former director general of the International Development Law Organization in Rome suggested that "[w]hen senators or representatives find themselves locked into irreconcilable positions on issues of national importance, third-party mediation could help overcome a stalemate.
What if Congress were to establish a politically neutral service for legislative mediation, organized along the lines of the Congressional Budget Office?" (Washington Post, 6/18/10) Although such a mediation program could not possibly act as a panacea for all that ails Washington, or this country, perhaps it could at the very least reduce the acrimony we see in Congress and present a more positive model for conflict resolution than we see in Washington today.
Source...