The mediator as nonviolent advocate revisiting the question of mediator neutrality

PRACTICE

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate: Revisiting the Question of Mediator Neutrality David Dyck This article presents the argument that the roles of interpersonal mediator and nonviolent advocate/activist are best carried out when they are each understood as being part of a largerframework of conflict resolution that makes room for them both. It draws on the relevant literature to date that supports the thesis that the skills and energes of both nonviolent advocacy and mediation should come into play in the actual practice of either role.

To this end, it challenges the notion of neutrality as a guiding concept in the practice of mediation, suggesting instead that mediators, like nonviolent advocates, should determine the degree to which they intervene or influence the content of a session by the communicative behaviors of those in conflict.

Finally, a visual model for illustrating the concrete ways in which the skills, conceptual resources, and energes of nonviolent advocacy might come into play in the practice and training of mediation is presented. The implications of this article are that we, as Western practitioners of mediation, must fundamentally rethink the way we define, carry out, and teach our role by looking, at least in part, to the assumptions and practice of nonviolent advocacy/ac tivism.

This article will probe the connections between the fields of conflict resolution and activism/social change. More particularly, the discussion will focus on the ways in which the approaches of interpersonal mediation and nonviolent advocacy/activism overlap, complement, and are mutually dependent on one another. In so doing, 1 do not purport to be breaking entirely new ground, but will rely heavily on exploratory work that has been done in this area by such theorists as Adam Curle (1971), Maire Dugan (1996), and John Paul Lederach (1995,2000).

Just as these writers have all sensed the need to reflect on these roles in an effort to understand how they relate to an overall framework for peacebuilding, so have 1 felt such a need. More specifically, this project is undertaken MEDIATION QUARTERLY, vol

18. no 2. Winter 2000 0Jossey-Bass, a Wiley company

129

130

Dvck

because my personal experiences have led me to believe that there continues to be tension between many of those engaged in the respective roles of interpersonal mediation and nonviolent advocacylactivtsm. Although others have been aware of this tension and have been working to promote dialogue between these groups for some time (Lederach, 19891, it is my contention that such interaction remains unfortunately scarce. This scarcity is unfortunate because the roles of mediation and nonvlolent advocacy/activism are best carried out when it is understood that they are each part of a larger framework of conflict resolution or peacebuilding that makes room for them both. Furthermore, it is my contention that the energies and skills of both mediation and nonviolent activism should come into play in the practice of both roles and that the ongoing tension and lack of dialogue make this less likely. Currently, it appears to me that there continues to be a relative dearth of literature and training that reflect these perspectives. As such, this article represents one more small attempt to begin filling this gap.

Following a brief exploration of some of the personal experiences that have prompted my interest in this subject. two peacebuilding frameworks that I have found useful will be summarized. A review of some of the literature that supports the thesis that both mediators and nonviolent advocates should incorporate the resources of each other’s crafts in their respective work will follow. Finally, a visual model for further illustrating the ways in which the specific skills, conceptual resources, and energies of nonviolent activism might come into play in mediation will be explored. As someone who has been heavily engaged in the “on the ground practice and training of mediation, I will conclude with an example of how some of the principles of nonviolent activism informed my specific activities as a mediator in one particular session.

Defining the Terms Before continuing, some definitions are in order. Within this article, mediation is assumed to mean attempts on the part of third parties to a conflict to facilitate the articulation of disputing parties’ needs and interests. This activity is engaged with the goals of addressing both substantive and procedural concerns and generating participatory, fair, and mutually acceptable solutions (Lederach, 1995, 2000). Under this definition, mediators are chosen on the basis of their being deemed acceptable to all the parties in dispute ( h u e and Cormick, 1978).

Inasmuch as writers such as John Paul Lederach have written extensively on the different mechanisms by which mediators gain entry into different cultural contexts, this article will focus on the training and practice of the dominant mediation model of the North American context-that of the outsiderneutral (Lederach, 1989, p. 11). In this model, the mediator is chosen, based

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

131

on his or her status as a professional who is unknown to the parties in dispute and is understood to be neutral (p. 11). I choose to focus on this model because it is the one with which I am most familiar and because it is my belief that it is the practitioners of this form of mediation who are most in need of deeper reflection on the connections between their craft and the work of nonviolent advocacy/activism. Nevertheless, when discussing the relevance of nonviolent advocacy/activism to mediation, the present study will also occasionally draw on the insights gleaned from the insider-partial model of mediation (p. 11). In this latter form, the helpers gain entry via their intimate knowledge and trust of the parties involved in the dispute (Lederach, 1989).

Nonviolent advocacy work is here understood to be actions that eschew violence and are used in the course of engaging a conflict. These actions are engaged by a third party on behalf of one or more of the parties to a conflict.

The third party (advocate) engages in these actions to advance the interests of the party(ies) he or she is helping over and against certain objectives being pursued by the other party(ies) to the conflict (Ackerman and Kruegler, 1994). By violence, I mean “the infliction of physical injury on a person (or the attempt to inflict physical injury on a person) by a person” (Gilligan, 1996).

Mediators and Nonviolent Advocates and ActivistsA Legacy of Mistrust Mediator and conflict resolution theorist John Paul Lederach (2000) has suggested that we, as mediators, have tended to distrust social activists who dedicate themselves to the use of nonviolent protest in order to bring about change. He further observes that the feeling is mutual. “Activists talk with activists about mediators. Mediators talk with mediators about activists” (p. 86). So what do “we”talk about? Mediators discuss activists’ failure to Grasp the importance of interpersonal relationships Value listening Commit to the discipline of learning process skills Seriously engage all viewpoints in the context of deeply fractured relationships (Lederach, 2000) And this is only among those of us who bother to discuss them at all. That is, it can be convincingly argued that a great many North Americans practicing mediation fail to recognize any connection between the work of mediation and nonviolent activism. For their part, nonviolent activists critique mediators as people who Engage in the covering up of deep-rooted, structural conflict in favor of an “ideology of harmony” (Nader, 1993, p. 402; Abdennur, 1987)

132

Dych

Conceive of conflict in terms of misunderstanding and naively assume that “shared feelings” bnng empowerment (Yngvesson, 1993) Are largely Euro-American, middle-class professionals with destructive notions of “neutrality” (Yngvesson, 1995) that usually serve the interests of the powerful and reduce “injustices to ‘problems of communication”’ (Lederach, 2000, p. 86) So what is all this tension and distrust about? Why have people in these two streams of pursuing peace apparently had so little use for each other?

Some Personal Reflections Reflecting back on my own personal journey to professional work in the field of mediation and conflict resolution, 1 am able to articulate a few possibilities. Returning to my undergraduate studies after a year of working in a community facing the reality of structural violence every day, 1 became increasingly uneasy with my studies in conflict resolution. Attending classes devoted to communication skills and reading literature focused on the importance of “connecting” interpersonally w t h others, 1 wondered if the mediation field represented an elaborate attempt at a “Band-Aid”solution where more radical measures were required. This tension was further bolstered by my parallel major in religious studies, in which I was learning about nonviolent action, liberation theology, and other more radical movements for social change.

In joining a community-based victim-offender mediation and community conflict resolution program following my studies, my feelings of dissonance continued. Victim-offender mediation appealed to me because of the emphasis on truth telling about wrongdoing, meeting the needs of the injured, and the opportunity extended to the wrongdoer to take responsibility to make things right. Yet mediation did not often provide space to acknowledge or probe the structural elements of the conflict that may have significantly contributed to an individual’s involvement in crime. Nevertheless, as I began mediating, the power of the process could not be denied. Again and again, I was a part of sessions that appeared to be very meaningful to both participants.

Practicing and training in the foundational concepts of the field of conflict resolution, 1 also slowly came to believe in the strength of exploring interests rather than reiterating positions, in the value of understanding different perspectives, and in the power of listening. Yet I also continued to sense the danger that mediation could easily serve to perpetuate injustice by neglecting the need for advocacy A strong voice within me also continued to insist that there was still a place for confrontation, but I was unsure of how it all fit together. I felt particularly alone because many of my colleagues in the field of mediation did not seem to share my tension. I felt 1 had to choose. Would 1 seek to ease

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

133

tensions, as a mediator, in the pursuit of peace, or raise tensions, as an activist, in the pursuit of justice?

Constructing an Inclusive FrameworkTwo Contemporary Theorists A personal turning point came when I took a course taught by Adam Curle

(1971). Sharing his rich background in international conciliation work, Curle explained the framework for peacemaking that he had first developed in 1971 (Curle, 1971) (see Figure 1).This was the first time I had seen this matrix that accounted for power and awareness disparities while creating space for education, advocacy, and mediationhegotiation under the general umbrella of peacemaking. Furthermore, Curle’s model assumed a value orientation in favor of less powerful groups gaining voice and power, which resonated with my personal commitments. This was the lens I had been searching for and which appeared to have been missing from my studies of both conflict resolution and nonviolent advocacy/activism.

John Paul Lederach-A “Long Range” View of Conflict. Building on the work of Curle, Lederach (1995, 2000) has written particularly effectively on

Figure 1. Adam Curle’s Framework for Building Peace Relations

Unpeaceful Static

Unstable

Dynamic

Overt Conflict

High

Low 4 Awareness of Conflict Source: Lederach, 1995, p. 63.

Peaceful

134

Dyck

the meaning Curle’s matrix has for those engaged in the work of mediation and nonviolent action. Describing how the different roles related to education, advocacy, and mediation come into play, Lederach states: Education, or conscientization,is needed when the conflict is hidden and people are unaware of power imbalances and injustices. Increased awareness of issues, needs, and interests leads to demands for changing the situation.

Such demands are . . . [often]not even heard nor taken seriously by those benefiting from the situation. . . . Hence, the entry of advocatrs who work with and support those pursuing change. Their work pushes for a balancing of power . . . through some form of confrontation If successful, the confrontation will increase awareness of interdependence and balance power . . .

Negotiation now becomes possible. and the role of mediation emerges. Successful negotiation and mediation lead to a restructuring of the relationship and deal with substantive and procedural concerns [ 1995, pp. 12-14; 2000, pp. 86-87--emphasis mine].

In the previous description, Lederach acknowledges the place of both advocacy and mediation efforts in the pursuit of what Curle (1971) refers to as “peaceful relations” (p. 186).More Important, the writer contends that these two activities “overlap, complement, and are mutually supportive and dependent,” despite their differing immediate goals (Lederach, 1995, p. 14). With respect to overlap, the writer points out that mediation and nonviolent advocacy share the overall goal of c h a n p g and restructuring unpeaceful relations.

They also share an assumption that such change is dependent on less powerful groups gaining a voice (Lederach, 1995).

Lederach also illustrates the complementary differences of the two roles.

Nonviolent advocacy stands with one side; mediation stands in connection to all sides. Nonviolent advocacy seeks to increase overt conflict so as to move from silence and complacency to awareness while reducing violence. Mediation, assuming an acute awareness of conflict, seeks to promote increased mutual understanding while reducing adversariness. Finally, although nonviolent advocacy is commonly experienced as increasing conflict and mediation as reducing it, they are each more correctly understood as being one aspect of a larger effort toward constructive conflict transformation (Lederach, 2000).

Maire Dugan-A “Nested” Theory of Conflict. Although few writers have addressed this subject as explicitly as Lederach, Maire Dugan’s reflections (1996) are closely related. Dugan describes a paradigm that acknowledges both the different levels of conflict and the need for different types of peacebuilding activities at these different levels. Her model grew o u t of her work with issues revolving around a brawl between boys of African American and European descent at a high school in Northern Virginia. The violence had erupted when the white boys had amved on campus with jackets emblazoned with the Confederate flag (Dugan, 1996).

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

135

Detailing the deep emotional impact of this event, not only on the boys involved but also on the school and the community as a whole, Dugan proceeds to describe the probable activities of the typical practitioner of conflict resolution in such a situation. She concludes that the average “conflict resolver” would likely opt for some form of mediation or facilitated conversation between the main protagonists. “The aim of such a conversation would be to help the boys in reaching understanding and agreement on the concerns that prompted the fight and the ways in which such disagreements could be better handled in the future” (Dugan, 1996, p. 13).

Further goals might include the creation of an environment in which all the boys could speak and listen openly about their feelings regarding the symbolism of the Confederate flag. In this way, Dugan suggests, the mediator might hope to cultivate a better understanding among all parties regarding their differences and common ground. Dugan concludes that the facilitator might even dare to hope that the boys might leave the room feeling less belligerent toward one another, with the white boys being more committed to expressing their identity in ways that were not offensive to the African American boys. In the best of situations, having experienced a “watershedevent” in their young lives, the boys’ future lives might even be affected to the point of one or more of them becoming active in the work of improving race relations (Dugan, 1996).

Having, in my assessment, fairly described the typical actions and goals of the average mediator/facilitator, Dugan concludes that they are “not enough (1996, p. 13).They are not enough, she argues, because they do not address the deeper, structural sources of the conflict as found in the broader system of which the boys are but a part.

The Confederate flag, for example, as a symbol of the Souths right to maintain the institution of slavery and, more broadly, its nght to self-determination, preceded the birth of all of the boys involved, as well as the birth of everyone in their social and familial circles. Thus, this flag, along with many other symbols, strongly suggested that this conflict had deep structural and historical roots that went well beyond the boys.

Indeed, this fight was embedded in more fundamental conflicts, both historical and current, within the boys’ school, community, and nation. As such, the typical efforts of a mediator to respond to this incident are laudable and noble in intent but, ultimately, grossly insufficient. Furthermore, they are arguably actually destructive to the extent that they contribute to misleading the community as a whole into understanding the problem as one of personal failing on the part of the boys (Dugan, 1996).

Dugan’s analysis clearly illustrates the shortcomings of the present astructural or “neutral” approaches to conflict that continue to predominate in the sphere of mediation. They point to the clear need for new understandings of the practice of intervention that take us beyond the surface and help us to reach toward the structural roots of trouble.

Dych

136

The theorist responds to the problems she has identified by articulating a paradigm that clearly lays out different layers of conflict while also illustrating the way in which these different layers are connected and give rise to one another. More specifically, Dugan identifies four different types of conflict: issues-specific, relational, structural-subsystemic, and structural-systemic (19961, as shown in Figure 2.

Dugan’s visual model depicts the issues-specific level as being the micro or most accessible level “nested” wthin the relational level, which, in turn, is found within the subsystemic level. The subsystemic level falls within the largest purview of the system dimension. She contends that issues at one level are usually related to issues at the other levels. She also suggests that each dispute at a lower level does not necessarily emanate from a source at the higher levels. In reflecting on the work of intervenors, however, she is quick to add, “If a conflict exists between two or more parties who are members of groups among which structural conflict has existed . . . we should be extra mindful to look to see whether the particular conflict is rooted on the system level. It also means that the parties may be impacted by this broader conflict as they try to work their way out of a conflict that . . appears to be either issuesspecific or relational” (1996, pp. 15-16).

Dugan goes on to suggest that while issues-specific conflict may exist on its own, independent of other levels, the conflicts on the higher levels will always have manifestations on the levels nested within (for example, a subsystemic conflict will always have both relational and issues-specific spin-offs) (Dugan, 1996, p.16). ,

Figure 2. Maire Dugan’s Nested Paradigm of Conflict Foci

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

137

Although I agree with DuganS overall thesis, I question her contention that an “issues-specificconflict may exist on its own” (1996, p. 16). It seems plausible, as she suggests, that a dispute between a man and a woman may emanate from a more primary source than the systemic structural conflict that exists along gender lines. However, I would argue that there always exists at least a secondary dimension of the systemic, gendered sources. In other words, a woman may come into conflict with a man primarily because of specific matters they disagree about, such as who should do which household tasks, but these issues will always be at least partially influenced by the larger system of gender roles, expectations, and relations. Thus, issues-specific conflicts cannot exist entirely on their own. This point is important because of the tendency of Western mediators to dismiss the relevance of the work of nonviolent advocates at the systemic level to their work at the issues-specific leveI (and vice versa). In postulating an ever-present connection between issues-specific and systemic conflict, we correctly work against this tendency.

Regardless, Dugan’s model (1996) clearly suggests that those seeking to address conflict on one level need to be cognizant of the way that same conflict may be manifested on the other levels. This reinforces, from another angle, Lederach’s and Curle’s theses suggesting the need f0r.a multiplicity of peacemaking activities. If mediators truly wish to work at the roots of problems, they must embrace the need for intervenors to be engaged on multiple levels in a multiplicity of roles drawing on multiple forms of intervention.

To use Dugan’s example (1996), mediators must acknowledge the need to move beyond a heavy or exclusive focus on mediation-meeting with the boys who were doing the fighting, or even that of group facilitation-meeting with the boys and their supporters and a few school officials, “because the problem and its possible solutions go well beyond” these individuals (p. 17). Instead, mediators must be prepared to work closely with activists so as to respond to this problem as it Emerges from our dysfunctional paradigms of race relations and power and the United States’ national legacy of racism (structural systemic) Is reinforced in the specific policies, traditions, and procedures of our various institutions, which are, or are perceived to be, inequitable, antiquated, or ineffectual, such as the boys’ school (structural subsystemic) Surfaces in the ongoing patterns of interaction and feelings between the principal combatants (the boys) and their associatedsocial circles (relational) Is exhibited in the specific issues that emerged at the surface level of the conflict, such as the wearing of the Confederate flag and the fight or the specific acts of violence that ensued (issues-specific) (Dugan, 1996, pp. 17-18) In terms of roles, this would seem to imply that the resources of the nonviolent advocate are particularly relevant at the system and subsystem levels.

138

Dyck

However, the skills associated w t h the mediator become particularly important when working on the relational and issues-specific levels (Dugan, 1996).

More important, this model clearly implies that the effective mediator must be trained to think in terms of systems and must use the skills of analysis more commonly associated with the nonvlolent actimst. Similarly, the nonviolent advocate will carry out his or her work most effectively when embracing the specific interpersonal and facilitation skills more commonly associated with the mediator (Dugan, 1996).

Curle’s and Dugan’s analyses (1971; 1996) also suggest an approach to mediation training that emphaslzes the social and histoncal context of conflict and power analysis, as well as an awareness of all four layers identified in the latter’s model (that is, again, approaches and skills more commonly associated with the nonviolent activist or advocate). At a more complex level, these theorists raise critical questions about our most bedrock assumptions regarding what it means to be a mediator. More specifically, the thinking of Curle and Dugan suggests that the still-dominant Western characterization of the mediator as being strictly neutral may be both misleading and counterproductive.

For if a mediator were to truly seek to work from a full awareness of a given interpersonal conflict’s possible connections to inequitable relational patterns or structures, could he or she still claim a place for the stance of strict neutrality without running a very high risk of simply perpetuating those inequities that give rise to the conflict in the first place?

Visions of the Mediator as Advocate and the Advocate as Mediator-A Cross-Section of Literature Numerous theorists have explored this question, along with that of the overlap between the two roles of mediator and advocate at the concrete level of practice (Curle, 1971; Kraybill, 2000; King, 1986; Gandhi, as quoted in Bondurant, 1988; Lederach, 1989, 2000; Cobb, 1993; Laue and Cormick, 1978). It is to a deeper exploration of these issues and authors that we now turn.

Adam Curle. Curle (1971) describes peacemaking roles as including the educator, the confronter, the conciliator (mediator), the bargainer, and the developer. Suggesting that all of these roles involve the skills of the activist promoting changed relationships, Curle concludes that “only the conciliator will be ideologcally neutral, and that only to a relative degree. His role can perhaps be likened to that of the psychoanalyst in that his task can be camed out better by listening and interpreting than by taking the initiative; but he is not committed to passivity, and in the interest of reaching a settlement he (she) may find ways of exerting pressure” (pp. 181-182).

In other words, while the mediator generally “stands in connection to all sides” (Lederach, 2000, p. 87) and assumes a listening stance, this does not imply that his or her behavior does not influence the content. Curle is thus one

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

I39

of the earliest practitioners to suggest that the mediator is well advised to be prepared to use particular skills of initiative more commonly associated with the advocate. While stating the dangers of “pacification”inherent in pursuing conciliatory measures in situations of unbalanced power, Curle (1971) also implies that comfort with these dialogical skills is necessary for the advocatdactivist to understand when and how to effect an appropriate shift to this strategy Gerald Cormich andJames Laue. In a seminal essay in which they discuss the roles of activist, advocate, and mediator, Laue and Cormick (1978) also suggest that these different players need to make use of one another’s practical skills. Acknowledging that mediators generally do not play multiple roles, the authors nevertheless state, “We have seen skillful intervenors playmg two or more roles in the same dispute. The advocate-mediator is the best example.

In this role, an intervenor combines mediation skills with the work necessary to organize and strengthen the weaker party so a settlement that will stick can be achieved (p. 216).

Responding to those who would balk at their suggestion on the basis of its compromising mediator neutrality, the authors suggest that this guiding notion of the dominant Western model is essentially illusory. In the very act of promoting the collaborative process that is intrinsic to mediation, the mediator becomes an advocate for a particular process and against other types of processes (and of the outcomes that would naturally result from those processes). Therefore, rather than exerting their influence unawares, mediators should accept the advocacy dimension of their role and seek to act responsibly with it ( h u e and Cormick, 1978).

With respect to the question of how mediators might carry out the advocacy dimension of their role without “falling into the blind partisanship of party advocacy” (Kraybill, 2000, p. 292), Laue and Cormick offer no easy answers. However, they do offer the suggestion that “the key to this kind of role mixing is the perceived integrity and judiciousness of the intervenor” ( h u e and Cormick, p. 216). This answer points us in the direction of trust as a key variable to the practice of effective mediation and peacebuilding. As such, it suggests that those who practice the dominant, North American model of mediation may need to take more seriously the lessons of the insider-partial model (Lederach, 1989). I will explore this notion in more detail shortly. In eliminating neutrality as a guide, h u e and Cormick (1978) contend that we as mediators must assess all of our practices in light of a single ethical question: “Does the intervention contribute to the ability of relatively powerless individuals and groups in the situation to determine their own destinies to the greatest extent consistent with the common good?” (pp. 217-218). Again, ths question, and the core values of social justice and empowerment to which it points, is more often associated with the partiality of advocacy than with Western notions of the neutral mediator.

With respect to the role that mediation should play in nonviolent advocacy/ activism, Laue and Cormick (1978) are equally clear. Those “who develop

140

Dyck

good negotiation skills, who understand the mediation process, and [who] know how to use mediators can help achieve the goals of their organization” (p. 217). They further suggest that advocates must be equipped to effectively reach out to the other side to initiate negotiations when the timing is right.

Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther KingJx This contention is in keeping wth the work of two of the most well-known and respected practitioners of nonviolent action in this century. While fundamentally committed to the work of principled advocacy, both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were equally clear on the need for the attitude and skills most commonly associated with the mediator. Gandhi’sentire Satyagraha philosophy, on which King relied heavily, was based on the belief that the individual is incapable of knowing the entire truth in any situation (King, 1986; Bondurant, 1988). Thus, Gandhi called those who would engage in confrontation to nonetheless “maintainan unceasingly open approach to those who would differ [from them]” (Bondurant, 1988, p. 16).This philosophical stance requires a rigorous and ongoing engagement of the individual with those he or she disagrees with, since “the quest for truth cannot be prosecuted in a cave” (p. 22).

This does not imply a “weak kneed” inability to take a principled stand.

Rather, pursuing truth means adhering to one’s understanding and vigorously attempting to persuade one’s opponent, yet holding this conviction in tension with an openness to persuasion by the other (Bondurant, 1988, p. 3 3 ) . This paradoxical approach is similar to the attitude effective mediators attempt to foster among those with whom they work. In terms of nonviolent action, then, Satyagraha includes the fundamental call to persistently search for avenues of cooperation even as one engages in confrontation (p. 39). Furthermore, both Gandhi and King emphasized the importance of exhausting the possibility of negotiation before nonviolent advocacy or activism is even engaged (Bondurant, 1988; King, 1986). Finally, Gandhi, himself, demonstrated his shlls as a negotiator, conciliator,and mediator (Bondurant, 1988,pp. 45-1021.’

Nevertheless, Gandhi’s framework for dialogue equally suggests that he would have been very uncomfortable with the notion of neutrality on the part of the contemporary intervenor. That is, since he openly approached his intermediary tasks with a vision for empowering the relatively powerless and the creation of just relationships and structures, it would seem reasonable to conclude that he would challenge contemporary Western mediators to likewise become reflective and transparent about our values and long-term vision (Bondurant, 1988; Fischer, 1982).Rather than deluding ourselves and others with claims of neutrality, his legacy would seem to push us in the direction of developing a broader and clearer vision of what we stand for and how this relates to our task as mediators. Therefore, as the nonviolent advocate pursues his or her particular tasks within a broader set of systemic goals, we mediators must become clearer about the relationships,structures, and communities we envision and then openly engage in our task from within this frame of reference. Entering a dialogue aimed at pursuing a particular truth or justice

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

141

without a clear metaconceptualization of truth and justice is a dangerous enterprise, regardless of what role the intervenor plays (Bondurant, 1988, p. 33).

To those who would dismiss these arguments on the basis of Gandhi’s and King’s commitments to particular outcomes, as opposed to the Western mediator’s supposed commitment to neutrality in relation to outcome, it must be reasserted that, for all of us, such “neutrality is an illusion: there is no such thing as a detached or neutral observer” (Kraybill, 2000, p. 291). Instead, like King and Gandhi, we must come to recognize that, regardless of whether we are seeking to help others who are in conflict or we are engaged in our own struggle, “we are all [be] advocates of something all of the time, whether we are conscious of it or not” (p. 292). Furthermore, when we remain unconscious of that which we are advocating-that is, neutrality-it is highly likely that we will act (read: mediatdadvocate) in such a way as to reinforce whatever relationships and structures are currently in place. Indeed, it is in keeping with the fundamentals of systems and political theory that those in any system, if they are not “conscientized to their role within that system, will generally act in such a way as to maintain homeostasis-that is, to keep that system functioning as it is (Freire, 1970; Friedman, 1985; Parenti, 1993).2Gandhi certainly understood this principle, as evidenced in the nonneutral yet principled and ultimately transformational way he approached his tasks as an intermediary (Bondurant, 1988).

John Paul Lederach. Returning briefly to Lederach (1989,2000), we discover that contemporary peacemakers continue to explore the practical overlap between mediation and nonviolent advocacy. Lederach (ZOOO), who has worked as a mediator in both international and domestic conflicts, writes, “The best nonviolent activists know and use the skills of an adept mediator. The best mediators have the passion and vision of activists” (p. 88). Drawing on his framework of insider-partial and outsider-neutral models, Lederach suggests that the most effective efforts at achieving peace are often those wherein those persons who are connected and known to the disputing parties (insider-partials) work closely with others who are more outside the conflict (outsider-neutrals) in a conjoint intervention effort aimed at establishing peaceful relations (1989).

What binds these two parties is the vision for change through increased justice (2000).

With regard to the practical resources required, such an endeavor could not strictly be defined in terms of mediation or nonviolent advocacy, as these concepts are usually understood in the North American context. Rather, it would require individuals who are equipped with a strong vision of what makes for just solutions and who have the conciliatory skills essential for bringing them about. While Lederach acknowledges that not everyone will carry both of these attributes in equal measure, he suggests a number of specific ways peacemakers are aided to the extent that they do (1989).

For example, while emphasizing the need for awareness-raising efforts, Lederach is quick to add that this work is best done in a nonadversarial way

142

Dyck

and by using facilitative skills associated with the mediator (Lederach, 1989).

While acknowledging that the individuals playlng this role are usually understood as advocates and not as mediators, he contends, with h u e and Cormick (19781, that they can and often d o constructively take on the latter role (Lederach, 1989). With Curle, Lederach believes that, in the midst of catalyzing overt conflict, the advocate must also stay attuned to opportunities to use his or her conciliation skills in fostering a change in perception regarding the enemy. More specifically, peacemakers in all roles must be attentive to disputing parties’ high levels of distrust and need to save face. This work is best attended to by bridge-building intervenors who “cultivate relationships of trust on all sides through patient, attentive listening and care” (p. 13). These are skills and activities usually associated with mediation, yet they are clearly also important for the practice of nonviolent advocacy.

At the same time, in the spirit of Gandhi’s Satyagraha, Lederach (1989) cautions mediators on the dangers of neutrality as a guiding principle: “The keys are not distance from the issues or persons . . . nor strict neutrality. It is the paradoxical notion of ‘balanced partiality’. . . representing a ‘sympathetic listening’ and a ‘partiality’to all sides of the conflict” (p. 13).

Sara Cobb. Writing about mediation as it is defined and practiced in the North American context, Sara Cobb’s thesis (1993) also supports the idea of the mediator adopting approaches many would consider to fit better under the rubric of nonviolent advocacy. Like Curle (1971), Lederach (19891, Kraybill (ZOOO), and Laue and Cormick (1978), Cobb challenges the notion of mediator neutrality and suggests that the intervenor always influences the content in a dispute. Whether neutrality is understood as a mental attribute (impartiality) or as a relational attribute (equidistance), mediators are left in a vague territory with only psychological terms and intuition to guide their conduct.

When neutrality is removed as a defining element of mediation, what remains missing are specific communication-based descriptions of how a mediator might engage in fair, empowering practices. Cobb (1993) thus defines mediation as “a set of discursive practices that enhance the participation of disputants” (p. 250). For Cobb, the practices that enhance participation are those that build a “conjoint story” and allow all parties to construct “positive positions” for themselves (pp. 250 and 254).

Positive positions are constructed via the attribution of positive characteristics and good intent, usually for the self in the context of mediation.

Negative positions consist of the attribution of negative characteristics and intent, usually constructed by one disputant for the other($ in the context of mediation. “Once imprisoned in negative positions, few persons are able to construct alternative positive positions for themselves” (Cobb, 1993, p. 253). This “negative imprisonment” is problematic inasmuch as it leads to one or more parties being dominated by others in the conflict (that is, forced to be on the defensive). The narrative of the party who gets caught in a negative position also tends to come to be viewed as less legitimate in the eyes

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

143

of both the other disputant(s1 and the mediator as the session progresses (Cobb, 1993).

To counteract these dangers, Cobb proposes a simple yet radical solution.

To the extent that a mediation session is developing a story that is not conjoint or is characterized by one party’s “imprisonment” in a negative position, the mediator has an obligation to engage in actiwties that “destabilize narrative coherence” (1993, p. 253). Destabilizing narratives means using skills that “open” narratives to “transformation” (p. 254). This entails “pushing” participants who have been neglecting to take others’ narratives into account to do so. It can also mean making special efforts to facilitate the construction of “positive positions (i.e., legitimacy) for all disputants” (pp. 253-254).

The energy involved in encouraging one party to develop alternative stones that give recognition to aspects of the other party’s story or influencing the disputants’ narratives so as to create legitimacy (positive positions) for a party that is being dominated (Cobb, 1993) seems very close to the energy nonviolent advocates use in “pushing . . . for a recognition of mutual dependence increasing the voice of the less powerful” (Lederach, 1995, p. 13).While this “standingwith one side” usually takes a more momentary subtle form in mediation than in nonviolent advocacy, it remains a necessary and legtimate activity for the mediator. 1will return to this point shortly.

The Mediator as Nonviolent AdvocateA Model for Practice and Training Having reviewed the work of various theorists who suggest the need for a longrange view of conflict resolution that creates room for the legitimate practice of both nonviolent advocacy and mediation, as well as having summarized thinking that points toward a practice of mediation that incorporates elements of advocacy, I now turn most naturally to the question of what models might assist mediators with the task of training and engaging in a practice that is reflective of this thinking.

As previously noted, mediation can be defined as the undertaking of activities designed to reduce adversariness and increase mutual understanding, once the interdependence of the parties has been recognized. I agree with Cobb (1993), however, that another way to understand the mediator’s activities is as a set of practices designed to foster the creation of a conjoint narrative. The less the extent to which disputants participate toward the creation of a conjoint narrative, the more prominent these practices become. With Cobb (1993), Curle (19711, Lederach (19891, Kraybill (ZOOO), and Laue and Cormick (1978), 1 am therefore also rejecting the notion of mediator neutrality as the guiding principle of conduct and 1 accept that the mediator does influence the content of the dispute.

Within this framework, however, 1 also assume a value bias toward mediators who make efforts to influence the content as little as is necessary to

144

Dyck

achieve the goals of participation that Cobb (1993) has articulated. That is, the ideal is for the disputants to voluntarily create a conjoint narrative w t h room for positive positions for each disputant, with as little influence from the mediators as possible.

Nevertheless, once we have accepted that a mediator inevitably influences the content of the session, the key question becomes one of determining what degree and type of influence is appropriate. That is, as with nonviolent advocacy, the practice of mediation involves a series of judgment calls as to what level of intervention is needed. This level is determined by the degree of conjointness and positive positions in evidence. In other words, to the extent that disputant participation in narrative creation (that is, new understandings and settlements) is not interdependent or is engaged in from a purely negative position by one or both parties, the mediator is obligated to engage in more direct destabilizing action to foster an increase in both conjointness and positive positioning.

We might usefully compare these more highly interventionary approaches on the part of the mediator with the nonviolent advocate’s use of direct action when a higher-power group engages in repressive action against a lower-power group. In both cases, the intervenor brings additional destabilizing pressure to bear on one of the parties in a conflict, as shown in Figure 3 . In this moment, while still connected to both sides, the mediator is like the nonviolent advocate in that she stands more closely with one of the parties (please see note 1 to Figure 3).

Conversely, to the extent that disputant participation in narrative creation is interdependent and both parties have had the opportunity to explore their own positive characteristics and intent in relation to the conflict, the mediator is obligated to lower interventionary activity to a more “in-the-background’’ level. Here, we might compare the mediator’s actions w t h the nonwolent advocate’s use of monitoring, whereby the latter increases the chances that respectful, interdependent, nonviolent negotiation will take hold and continue by her mere presence (please see note 2 to Figure 3).

Furthermore, like the nonviolent advocate, the mediator is aided in her interpretation of specific communicative behaviors by a keen awareness of the ways in which power disparity and the larger relational and systemic field are likely to fuel the conflict and influence the actors (Dugan, 1996). The mediator also has a value bias in favor of the less powerful gaining voice because she believes that this is a critical ingredient to true resolution of the immediate issues and constructive transformation of the conflicted relationships and systems (Curle, 1971; Lederach, 1997). This bias correctly has a significant influence on the mediator’s judgment calls regarding Whether the disputant narrative creation IS sufficiently interdependent or conjoint mether positive positions have been sufficientlyconstructed for both parties

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

I45

Figure 3. The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate High

B “Destabilizing” G

0 A

Degree of Interventionary Activity

L

“Monitoring” D C

A

High

Low

Degree of Conjoint Participationand Positive Positions ‘“Destabilizing”.The lower the degree of disputant coparticipation in narrative creation (that IS, new understandings and settlements) and positive positions for one or both parties (see “ A ) , the higher the mediator’s interventionary, destabilizing activlty (follow the dotted line to “B”). This “direct action” is undertaken in an effort to foster an increase in both conjointness and positive positioning. * “Monitonng” Conversely, the higher the degree of disputant copanicipation in narrative creation and the lower the mediator’s interventionary activlty (follow the positive positions In evidence (see “0, dotted line to “D”)Thls monitonng approach is taken in light of the ideal of the disputants creating a conjoint narrative w t h room lor positive positions for each disputant wth as little influence from the mediators as possible

The appropriate level and focus of the mediator5 interventionaryactivity at any given moment As with nonviolent advocacy, however, the mediator’s goal remains to strive for as low a level of interventionary activity as the situation allows, consistent with the aims of positive positioning and conjointness (please see the “goal”arrow in Figure 3). The task of mediation, then, involves “looping” up and down this continuum as the context dictates. Thus, the mediator no longer claims to be neutrally facilitating an impartial process. Rather, as the nonviolent advocate’s behaviors are governed by the actions of the parties and the goals of nonviolence and interdependent recognition, so the mediator’s activity is governed by the communicative actions of the participants and the goal of positive positioning and interdependent narrative creation (read: conjoint participation).

Dyck

146

A Mediation Case Example Questions that might naturally be raised at this point include What does all this mean in the mediation room?

What does it mean for the mediator to increase interventionary activity so as to engage in narrative destabilization?

In what practical sense does the mediator pursue direct action or monitoring?

These questions are best explored through a brief examination of a typical community mediation case in which 1 served as the mediator.

A Workplace Dispute Involving Tom and Lorraine Tom and Lorraine came for help after a verbal blowup at work. The tension around their respective roles had reached a breaking point during a recent meeting. Tom, the supervisor, had asked Lorraine to give a report to the rest of the staff.She refused An exchange of harsh words followed, and Lorraine fled the meeting in tears.

Dunng the mediation session, Lorraine described her confusion about what to expect from Tom. She appreciated his caring manner but found that at times he suddenly turned cold and aloof. This was how she experienced him during the staff meeting. Sounding somewhat sheepish, she concluded that most of the problems, including the blowup, had probably been her fault. She apologized to Tom. The tone of Tom’s sharing was quite different. He stressed that Lorraine did not understand or respect the authority of his role as the supervisor and had openly defied him in front of the other staff members. Finally, he agreed with Lorraine that she had been largely responsible lor their unpleasant exchange. He was willing to accept her apology if she promised not to let it happen again.

During the telling of the stones, a number of participant behaviors were observable. While Tom spoke, Lorraine seemed to listen attentively, nodding her head frequently. While Lorraine shared, Tom looked the other way, shook his head, and sighed loudly on two occasions. At the conclusion of their initial stories and as negotiation ensued, a number of other things also became clear. Tom had a strong sense of his needs and the way he viewed the conflict and was very willing and able to articulate these things. This was manifested by particular communicative behaviors, such as his portrayal of fairly onedimensional negative intent on Lorrainek part. Lorraine recognized Tom’s perspective and seemed to struggle to identify and integrate it into her own experience. This was manifested at the level of communicative behaviors by her verbal acquiescence to Tom’s version of virtually everything, particularly after Tom spoke.

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

147

While both Lorraine and Tom might have been ready to settle this conflict at the conclusion of their storytelling, the agreement narrative would clearly not have been based on “positive positioning for all disputants,” nor would it be very conjoint (Cobb, 1993, p. 254). Lorraine’s initial narrative was characterized by a mix of both positive and negative positioning in relation to herself and therefore also in relation to Tom. Tom’s story, however, was characterized by almost uniformly positive positioning in relation to himself and therefore negative positioning in relation to Lorraine. Following their initial statements, it was Tom’s interpretation that quickly began to dominate as Lorraine became largely “imprisoned”in his negative portrayals of her characteristics and intent (Cobb, 1993, p. 253). Coconstruction of a collaborative narrative with elements from each disputant’s story was also clearly missing. Tom’s narrative, in terms of plot lines, character roles, and themes, was clearly giving predominant shape to the session.

Interestingly, to that point in the mediation, both Lorraine and Tom had resisted the creation of an interdependent narrative, albeit in different ways.

Thus, as mediators, our interventionary activity increased. Specifically, we sought to destabilize both parties’ narratives to open each of them up to the possibility of a higher degree of positive positioning for Lorraine and conjointness with respect to the emerging narrative. For Lorraine, this meant our supporting her toward a stronger connection with her own story. We helped her to identify the ways in which her past actions in the conflict made sense to her at the time. We encouraged her to speak and urged Tom to listen, thereby pushing him toward a stronger connection with Lorraine’s story Some of these more highly interventionary practices included Separate meetings to facilitate the exploration of each individual’s story in a setting whereby a more positive position for Lorraine could be safely explored (Cobb, 1993) The use of reframing skills in which both Lorraine and Tom were helped to consider her behavior in other than purely negative terms The use of mirroring, in which Tom was asked to articulate how the situation appeared from Lorraine’s perspective The use of probing (open-ended questions) to encourage Lorraine to explore and describe her interests The use of VCR rewind, in which Tom, particularly, was encouraged to consider if there was anything he might do differently if he could go back in time The extensive use of paraphrasing to offer emotional support in the form of listening to both participants as these more invasive techniques were engaged Over the period of an hour, these more interventionary initiatives appeared to help foster both a more positive position for Lorraine and, ultimately, a more conjoint story. As more of Lorraine’s perspective and positive intent came to

148

Dyck

light via her sharing, Tom came to believe that he had not been clear enough about his expectations in the past and had therefore sometimes been unfair.

He acknowledged that the staff meeting may have been one of these times.

Lorraine came to see her need for clear expectations and roles as legitimate.

She also came to better understand Tom’s perception of his role as the supervisor in relation to her. In other words, coconstruction of a narrative was now in evidence as elements (plot lines, character roles, and themes) of each disputant’s story gave shape to the new joint story that was emerging.

As the participation in the settlement narrative became more conjoint, both parties were able to engage in negotiation with one another more directly without risk of slipping back into imbalance. This allowed us, as mediators, to gradually decrease our interventionary activities to the level of monitoring.

Practically, this entailed sitting back and primanly assisting transitions and fostering a safer atmosphere via our mere vlsibility (pre~ence).~ It is important to acknowledge that these interventions are not in discord with the skills used by many mediators in the North American context. That is, few North American mediators would deny using at least some of these approaches. What is different here is the open acknowledgment that the use of these interventions is reflective of a nonneutral understanding of the role of the mediator and, like nonviolent advocacy, this method is biased toward attaining certain ends. While mediation is often falsely and dangerously conceptualized as the neutral pursuit of agreement, with no interest in the particular nature of that settlement and a commitment to not influencing the content of a dispute along the way, it is here described as the conscious pursuit of the true participation (read: conjoint narrative creation and positive positions) of all disputants via mediator influence This should ultimately result in the less powerful gaining voice.

Notes 1. For an in-depth illustration of Gandhi’s lesser-known work engaging the roles of conciliation and mediation as part of a nonvlolent campaign, please see Joan Bondurant’s excellent description and analysis in “The Ahmedabad Labor Satyagraha”in Conquest of Violence (1988, pp. 65-73).

2 . For example, Noam Chomsky discusses the homeostatic nature of systems in t e r n of how a biased mass media sustains and reinforces global capitalism in the National Film Board of Canada’s film Manufactunng Consent (1990) In the film, Chomsky is very clear that the nature of systems is such that particular indimduals wthin the media system need not be involved i n any conscious plot to cover up the truth to nevertheless engage in biased reporting.

3. It should be noted that mediators also often work with cases in which each participant attempts to create a mediation narrative that largely reflects only his or her OWTI plot line, character role, and theme, neglecting to take into account the other’s narrative Similarly, there are many cases in which both participants take on a uniformly positive position, thereby attempting to cast the other disputant in a uniformly negative position. In such cases, the mediator correctly engages in the destabilizing techniques we employed more vigorously with Tom, with both the participants. With respect to the current thesis, however, the point to not lose sight of is that, like the advocate, the mediator ISnot committed to a position of neutrality but rather determines his actions on the basis of the behavlors of the disputants and specific goals, that of positive

The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate

149

positioning for all disputants and the creation of a conloint story truly representative of all the voices w t h a stake in the conflict.

References Abdennur, A. The Conflict Resoluhon Syndrome. Ottawa, Canada. University of Ottawa Press, 1987.

Ackerman, P, and Kruegler, C “The Emergence of Strategic Nonvlolent Action ” In E Ackerman and C. Kmegler (eds 1, The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century New Yo&, Praeger, 1994 Bondurant, J. Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. Pnnceton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1988 Cobb, S. “Empowerment and Mediation. A Narrative Perspective.” Negotiation journal, 1993, 9 ( 3 ) ,245-259 Curle, A. Making Peace. London, Tavistock, 1971.

Dugan, M. “A Nested Theory of Conflict ” A LeadershipJournal: Women in Leadership-Shanng the Vfiion, 1996, 1 (11, 9-20 Fischer, L. Gandhi: His Lve and Messagefor the World. New York: Penguin Books, 1982 Freire, P Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press, 1970 Friedman, E. H. Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue. New York: Guilford Press, 1985.

Gilligan, J Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes. New York: Putnam, 1996 King, M L , Jr “Letter from Birmingham City Jail ” In J . M. Washington (ed ), A Testament of Hope: The Essential Wntings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, j r San Francisco. Harper San Francisco, 1986 Kraybill, R. ”The Illusion of Neutrality.” In C Schrock-Shenk (ed ), Mediation and Facilitation Training Manual. Foundations and Skillsfor Constructive Conflict Transformation. (4th ed Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Conciliation Service, 2000 h u e , J , and Cormick, G “The Ethics of Intervention in Community Disputes.” In G. Bermant, H. Kelman, and D. P Wamck (eds ), The Ethics of Social Intervenhon. New York Halstead Press, 1978.

Lederach, J. P “ConflictTransformation. The Case for Peace Advocacy.” In M. Weibe (ed.), NGO5 and Peacemaking,A Prospect for the Horn A Public Education Document Based On.“Conflict Resolution in the Horn ofAfnca: NGO’s i n Supportive Process.” Waterloo, Ontano: Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Conrad Grebe1 College, 1989 hderach, J. I? Preparingfor Peace: Conflict Transformahon Across Cultures. Syracuse, N.Y . Syracuse University Press, 1995 Lederach, J I? Budding Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: Endowment of the United States Institute for Peace, 1997.

Lederach, J E “‘Revolutionaries’and ‘Resolutionaries’,In Pursuit of Dialogue ” In C. SchrockShenk (ed ), Mediation and Facilitation Training Manual: Foundations and Skillsfor Constructive Conflict Transformation. (4th ed.) Akron, Pa.: Mennonite Conciliation Semce, 2000 Nader, L. “When Is Popular Justice Popular?” In S. Merry and N. Milner (eds.), The Possibility of PopuJarJustice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993 Parenti, M. Inventing Reality: The Politics ofNews Media. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Yngvesson, B. “Local People, Local Problems, and Neighborhood Justice: The Discourse of the ‘Community’in San Francisco Community Boards.” In S. Merry and N. Milner (eds.), The Possibility of Popular Jushce. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press, 1993.

David Dyck is an instructor at the University of Prince Edward Island’s Centrefor Conflict Resolution Studies, as well as an associate of Mediation Services of Winnipeg, where he has worked us the lead consultant in designing the Comprehensive Training and Support Planfor the RestorativeJustice Program of the N o w Scoria Department ofJustice.