Alice Lovelace.

• Story in Mediation
  
• Challenges To Cross Cultural Communication
  
• Chapter Summary
  
  
• Return to chapter 2 (part 1) - Story in an arts context, and in American culture
  
• Return to chapter 1 - Introduction / "Art, Race and Dialogue"
  
• Footnotes and references (this link will open a new browser window for easy reference)

Following are the first two chapters of a six chapter paper. Alice Lovelace is an editor of In Motion Magazine, co-editor of the Art Changes section.

Story in Mediation

Consistent with my first two sections, I will look at mediation as a culture. Which cultural perspective (story) of mediation that you embrace affects the way that you might view the use and uses of story in mediation. My interest is in the instruction given to mediators on how to use story. I will look at literature from mediation as transformation and mediation to unite people as they work towards social justice.

Some practitioners view mediation as a system that can help to satisfy disputes and human needs that if left un-addressed can lead to violence. Others view mediation as a way to unite people and work towards social justice. For some, mediation is a process that does little to resolve disputes so they focus on ways to transform the individual. A growing number look at mediation as a means of codifying class oppression. No matter what perspective a mediator holds certain instructions are common to the mediation process when it comes to the collection and use of story.

The mediator is at the center of the process. The mediator is instructed to make sure each party develops their story. The mediator has the power to set time limits and speaking turns. They must pay attention to the time so each party gets to speak for the same amount of time. They are also expected to articulate the history of the conflict. A mediator must guide each party to develop something between a rehearsed narrative of who, what, when, and a story that demonstrates the legitimacy of their emotions. From these directions, it is clear the process rests with the mediator. To be successful, a mediator needs to be highly skilled in oral communications and cultural styles of communication. Because the ability to tell one's story is at the heart of mediation, the mediator must pay close attention to and work to improve the communication skills of each party. A mediator is cautioned to take the time to listen to each party’s story then determine if additional stories should be solicited. They are expected to know that right moment for the correct reinforcement in order to move the process to a new level- (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993; Donohue, 1989; Moore, 1986).

The mediator's most intense encounter with story is during the interview phase. Every decision, from who to talk to first to where to meet, could influence the outcome and feelings of success. (Bush & Folger, 1994; Moore, 1986 see also Rifkin, et al. 1991). However, even before interviews can begin criteria have to be set that could limit the number of interviews and the kind of data [stories] to be collected. Mediators, along with disputants must consider the cost involved, the time to be committed, the relationship between disputants, and the amount of financial resources and other support available (Moore, 1986).

A mediator is instructed to be neutral in the dispute. Neutrality is experienced as a "step towards problem resolution" (Rifkin, et al. 1991, p.152), and as a quality of the mediator that ensures "a fair and just process" (p.152). Many mediators consider neutral as meaning to be impartial to the issues, show no feelings, ignore your own values, and have no personal agenda. Some researchers believe neutrality actually incorporates two qualities, impartiality and equidistance. Equidistance is defined as "those practices by which mediators support or encourage the disclosure of the disputants" (p. 15). Impartiality and equidistance imply a contradiction that makes neutrality difficult to achieve (Rifkin, et al.).

Impartiality... refers to the ability of the mediator (interventionist) to maintain an unbiased relationship with the disputants... Impartiality demands an unbiased approach to mediating.

Equidistance identifies the ability of the mediator to assist the disputants in expressing their 'side' of the case. .... Equidistance works to the extent that the mediator can assist each person equally. (p. 152-153)

The mediator listens to each story and is called upon at times to support and direct the disclosure of information by each party. This coming together implies an alliance. Stories are mined for what they can ~ell the mediator about possible movement towards settlement. Then, the mediator is asked to return to the role of impartial outsider.

A good mediator is one who can suppress feelings and still encourage others, remain emotionless and still be supportive, and remain objective and still determine the course of the session. (Rifkin, et al. 1991, p. 160)

This coming together then pulling apart creates a paradox for the mediator and the disputants.

Paradoxes are recursive, self-perpetuating loops of interaction that contribute to the establishment and maintenance of contradictory positions. (p. 153)

The paradox arises because equidistance and impartiality are "contradictory by definition" (p. 153).

In this sense the facilitation of disclosure contradicts the denial of alliance because the disputants receive mixed messages that confuse their relationship with the mediators. (p. 155)

For this reason, mediators are cautioned to view themselves as mediators of stories not sides. By focusing on the stories people tell instead of sides, mediators may be able to avoid the paradox of neutrality. This means a focus beyond stories about the dispute or conflict and eliciting a full range of stories that express "the ongoing interactive nature of the mediation narrative" (Rifkin, et al. 1991, p. 160).

Story facilitation recognizes the mediator as an active participant in the coconstruction (slc) of the narrative. The narrative is greatly influenced by the way in which the mediation session is structured and by the interventions made along the way. Decisions such as who to see in a private session, what types of questions to ask, and when to hold private caucus are all seen as influencing the unfolding of the storytelling process. (p. 161)

Further support of storytelling comes from mediators who work with large groups and public policy issues. Stan Gentle (1996) (5) often finds himself in this position and stresses the need to pay closer attention to the stories of each party. When social justice is a goal, stories represent data that goes beyond the issues at hand to ideas about the systemic roots of the conflict. When unity and social change are goals, the stories each party shares are clues to how we deal with emotion and values that are at times more important than the conflict. In this context, stories let parties' address past conflicts and acknowledge the damage. Stories are a way to conceive of a future that moves the community to a new level of social, political, and economic relations. Stories open the way for dialogue to provide a forum for parties to share information, express emotion, and relate their values. When social justice is the goal a large investment of time is required. The procedure depends on hearing from as large a number of parties to the dispute as possible.

The significance of what a story represents increases when the goal is transformation of the conflict into an opportunity for moral growth. In this orientation, story opens the way for self-reflection and transformation, contributing to increased dialogue and the restructuring of relations. In order to help parties to tell their story, a mediator must be open to multiple ways of interpreting the dispute so as not to favor one party's reality over another. At the same time, the mediator must be able to keep each party focused on the issues not on each other. The mediator must be capable of accepting the emotions that might range from fear, selfishness, to defensiveness while at the same time striving to bring disputing parties to a place of caring and confidence. They have the responsibility to balance the emotion in stories (Rifkin, et al. 1991), especially when disputants are from different cultural or social backgrounds. (Bush & Folger, 1994).

Full moral development involves an integration of individual autonomy and concerns for others, of strength and compassion. Therefore bringing out both of these inherent capacities together is the essence of human more maturity. In the transformative view, conflicts are seen as opportunities for developing and exercising both these capacities, and thus moving toward full moral development. (pp. 81-82)

A transformative orientation dictates that the nature of the conflict is secondary to the potential for human growth. The goal is to prepare people to respond to conflict in productive ways. Allowing parties to tell their stories from many perspectives helps them realize their "human capacity for experiencing and expressing concern and consideration for others" (p. 82).

In the transformative orientation, the ideal response to a conflict is not to solve 'the problem.' Instead, it is to help transform the individuals involved, in both dimensions of moral growth. Responding to conflicts productively means utilizing the opportunities they present to change and transform the parties as human beings. It means encouraging and helping the parties to use the conflict to realize and actualize their inherent capacities both for strength of self and for relating to others. It means bringing out the intrinsic goodness that lies within the parties as human beings. (p. 82)

The goals of transformative mediation call for the ability to help conflicting parties to see the dispute through the eyes of their opponent by wanting for their opponent what they want for themselves. To achieve this level of acknowledgement calls for a period of conscious raising supported by education in order to re-orient parties to think in terms of self-transformation instead of resolution of settlement.

In this model, the mediator is as a sort of spiritual guru guiding parties to a place where they feel good about each other and themselves. They create an atmosphere in which each speaker feels at ease and aware of their own self-worth. This requires establishing a high level of trust between parties and among parties and the mediator. Only in this environment can the receiver extend recognition to the teller as they become aware of and acknowledge the opposing party's situation. The objective is to empower each party to: (a) become clearer about goals, (b) realize the range of options available to them, (c) increase and use new skills, (d) become aware of additional resources, and (e) to take part in the decision-making (Bush Folger, 1994).

Practitioners and theorists from various fields of conflict resolution are trying to understand the connections between human needs theory and conflict resolution as a system of mediated justice. Many oppose processes like transformative mediation and charge that it leads to efforts designed to fix the people, especially the poor or unskilled. Victoria Rader (1990) is a steadfast critic of human needs theory and approach to conflict like that implied by transformative mediation.

Such a conceptualization, no matter how sympathetic, ultimately blames the victim and distracts us from the structural origins of the injustice poor people face. (p. 232)

We are encouraged by people like Joseph A. Scimecca (1990) to look at story in mediation as a way of helping bridge the communication gaps between people from different cultures, and between Black and White Americans in particular. This means focusing more on what a story means to the speaker and hearer. This system of shared symbols aids in what Scimecca sees as the two needs basic to all humans; the need for self-consciousness and self-reflexivity. Scimecca considers them as universal because they do not depend on a cultural interpretation and are not determined by one's genetics.

(Self-consciousness) can only be derived from self-reflexivity (the ability to think back and reflect upon one’s actions)....and the concomitant need for freedom, which is the only condition which enables self-reflexivity fully to develop. (p. 208)

The need for self-consciousness means we need to be aware of the world around us and have a frame of reference for dealing with that world. Self-reflexivity allows us to look back on our life and experiences then take the best in order to continue to live.

Our stories make us feel a part of the group. However, while they help us feel a part of our group, our stories can foster mistrust and misunderstandings when communicating outside our group. This is because the meaning of our story is what we say, but meaning also depends on the perception of the hearer. Perception affects how we frame what we say and how we receive the words of others. Perception hampers our ability to understand the meaning others give to their stories.

How much the speaker and hearer agree on meaning is further complicated by the fact that what a story means to one could imply the opposite meaning to the other. In the constructivist view of language equal meaning is given to literal and figurative language, because meaning is viewed as having "to be constructed rather than directly perceived" (Ortony, 1979/1993, p. 2). Our understanding of story and metaphor is challenged by the competing cultural realities rooted in language and story. It is the role of those who teach to help clarify and to establish a system of story as consciousness of personal history, world history and connections to the history of others (Freire, 1970, 1994).

Challenges To Cross Cultural Communication

In order to determine if the words being spoken are true or not, speakers test each other for proof or validity. When a person says one thing and really believes something else, the discrepancy between the two can usually be sensed....it's usually this lack of congruity between a person's words and his behavior that makes us anxious and uncomfortable. (Hall and Hall, 1990, p. 66)

Among African Americans, a speaker is expected to take a position then communicate that position in strong terms in order to press the validity claim that what she/he believes and acts on to be true. To be neutral in the exchange is to invite distrust or disdain. Given its modeling of Western European culture, many White Americans have a cultural orientation that is supported not by emotion, body language, or investment in information, but from the aspect of a specialist or expert (Kochman, 1981, 1990).

What story means to African Americans is very different from what it means for Whites. Whites approach story as a means to arrive at a point when one party agrees with the other or by the reason of their words they convince one party to consider the other's point-of-view. Given the passion in Black style, it can be difficult for Whites to differentiate between argument as an expression of anger and the argument of dynamic opposition meant to persuade the opponent. "Whites fail to make these distinction because arguments for them functions only to ventilate anger and hostility. (Kochman, 1981, p. 19 see also 1990). For African Americans sharing stories is more about the engagement itself, not the outcome. It is the engagement, the fact that you respect the other person enough to respond to them, to treat communications as a form of reciprocity that sways them (Sanger, 1995). It is not a matter of agreement but rather remaining open to the engagement.

Chapter Summary

In cross-cultural communications, the devil is in the details. However, if the conflicting individuals are morally committed in a relationship based on mutual struggle, getting to dialogue and self-directed education can prove daunting, but not impossible. This chapter sought to develop ideas from the arts and conflict resolution from writers who believe there is a larger role for storytelling as "an alternative discourse" (Rifkin, et al. 1991, p. 160).

We are advocating an alternative understanding of the communication process that shifts the focus from transmission of the messages to the reciprocal interactions of storytelling. (p. 160) In the next chapter I will discuss my method of inquiry. I report on my research design, study population, and how I went about collecting and analyzing the data.

Return to chapter 2 (part 1) - Story in an arts context, and in American culture
Return to chapter 1 - Introduction / "Art, Race and Dialogue"