From Transaction to Transformation

You may have the impression that all mediation is framed from the same school of thought or general philosophy.  That is not the case.  In fact, as the field grows from infancy through adolescence and into some measure of maturity, there is ongoing debate about the nature of mediation itself.  

On the one hand, some wonder if mediation is a way to suppress social ferment and to disaggregate the less powerful into pockets of individual interests.  That is a valid critique and one that many of us in alternative dispute resolution must take with great seriousness.  This can be as specific as the power imbalance between ex-spouses in a nasty divorce.  It can be as broad and general as the "divide and conquer" approach that some take to rolling back the gains of the civil rights movement.

On the other hand, there is the community organizing foundation of mediation on this continent.  It has often been a way for communities of disparate individuals to find common interests and thus organize to confront the powerful.  I hope that is the result of our practice at least some of the time.

Most important for me is the tension between transactional and transformational mediation.  "Transactional" mediation focuses on absolute neutrality of the mediator.  This perspective also tends to put a higher value on settlement as a goal.  Most of all, transactional mediation tends to see conflict as a relative evil that should be managed, controlled and ultimately suppressed.  This is the perspective that appears to inform my work as a parenting plan mediator.  The closer I hew to the "standard model" of parenting plans and the greater emphasis I put on keeping people out of court, the better the system feels about my work.

That's a fine thing for the courts.  Unclogging our civil judiciary is a great fringe benefit of mediation services.  I am, however, not satisfied with the understanding of conflict as something to be suppressed and, in theory, eliminated.

I am more aligned with the "transformational" perspective on mediation.  My first book discussed conflict as opportunity in the life of the church.  That perspective has not changed.  Transformational mediation sees conflict as an opportunity to bring about constructive change in parties and in the larger community.

I often seek to do some brief teaching with parties in order to build some capacity for future problem-solving.  In addition, conflict is often required before there is real growth in any relationship.  Two ex-spouses may be done being married to one another.  They are not, however, done co-parenting.  The better they can relate to one another, the more likely it is that the best interests of the children will be served.

I seek to build four capacities as I mediate, coach, or counsel:

1. The capacity to connect to other people
2. The capacity to have compassion on other people
3. The capacity to build competence in conflict resolution
4. The capacity to make and keep commitments to other people.

When we can increase one or more of these capacities, conflict has been used as an opportunity for people to grow and the world to become better.  When we can increase one or more of these capacities, we will not only get a good agreement, but we will have better relationships among the folks who made the agreement.  When we can increase one or more of these capacities, the cumulative peacefulness of our planet has been increased.

How do you see yourself in terms of these capacities?  Would you like to grow in any or all of them?