| |
When we learned
the answer to this question during our Basic Mediation Training,
we couldn't wait to tell the world. It's so simple and obvious.
It also doesn't
keep even us, from fighting sometimes...
People seem
to fight because they are different from each other. Our culture
teaches almost nothing about how to deal with differences constructively.
The U.S.'s first idea was the "melting pot." We'd cook
each wave of new immigrants in our "better" way, until
we converted them. Then we'd convert everyone else. It didn't work.
It never does. You don't solve difference by eliminating it.
The first thing
we learned as mediators, is that two opposing ideas can co-exist.
You can sit them on a table right next to each other: matter and
antimatter; and if you treat them both with respect, they can actually
get along. We can agree to disagree. So the first thing we teach
couples, is that "Difference does not equal Fight."
In fact, if
you don't get scared by a differing point of view, it changes from
a potential dispute, into an opportunity to see new aspects of the
situation which might never have occurred to you.
The real
reason people fight, is because they have a need (usually unidentified,
and often unexpressed) which isn't getting met. What causes the
fight, is the way the need gets expressed, not the fact that the
other person isn't meeting it.
This seems like
bad news at first, because it puts all the onus on you. But it's
actually good news, because you are the only one you're actually in
control of. So with a little bit of self reflection, and some training
in communication, couples who "always fight about that"
can suddenly negotiate agreements which are satisfying to both parties,
without changing who they are, or what they need.
Here's
how it works:
 |
|
Parties generally come into a mediation, each with their
own story about what happened. They both lived through the
same events, and yet their stories are often wildly divergent.
How is this possible?
How can two people describe the same set of facts, and yet
come to such different conclusions about what those facts
mean, that they end up fighting?
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
The answer lies in the word "facts." We don't experience
events directly, we filter them through our experience. This
filtering process is seemingly instantaneous, so it often goes unnoticed.
People who never notice their own filtering process, walk
around feeling very sure of themselves. They also create a
lot of conflict.
Events are filtered through a whole host of influences, from
feelings, to beliefs, personal style and family-of-origin
ways of seeing the world.
In mediation terms, a "fact" filtered through these
influences, becomes a "position." Most mediations
start with two parties, each of which believe they are describing
the facts, when actually, what they are describing is their
position.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
The positions we use (the way we filter and interpret the
facts) creates a version of reality which best meet our needs.
In fact, positions are often formulated (unconsciously) to
meet all of our needs, and none of the needs
of the other party. (For example, if your new neighbor's dog
barks, your position might be: "I want you to move out."
This meets your need for quiet, but doesn't meet any of the
neighbors needs).
Of course, the other party is usually doing the same thing.
This results in conflict.
|
|
| |
 |
|
Mediation is a "needs-based" conversation. That's
because that is the conversation which is trying to happen,
whenever people with differences find themselves at an impasse.
So the first job of a mediator, is to separate the filters
from the events, and help the speaker identify what needs
are underneath.
It's hard, sometimes, for parties to let go of the belief
that the other person is the problem, because this perception
is so convincing. (It also feels good because then we're not
the problem.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
We help both sides identify and communicate what they are
needing to the other side.
This has an almost magical effect. Suddenly, the other party,
who is open to hearing your needs, changes from an "enemy"
to an "ally."
And problems which were intractable, open up to new and creative
solutions.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|