Posts
How might we consider the spreading social conflict in the culture wars that Republicans often start in order to avoid the more salient public policy issues? So, for instance, they pander to banning books[1] that are on the other side of culture war battles they pick but choose to ignore more basic public policy, such as protecting future generations from the ravages of climate chaos, or protecting folks of any age with a disability or elderly people from cuts in Social Security. They obsess over outlawing drag shows but vote to stop any student loan forgiveness. This is a weapon of mass distraction.
I wonder how a great mediator might help in such a case. Drilling down to interests is the first thing. Sometimes that happens by a proposal to all parties, such as, "Can we agree to three representatives from both parties begin meeting to explore options?"
Even though the parties may see scant options beyond ferocious court cases and tough political battles to elect their champions into offices at all levels, a mediator may be able to at least get a start by noting that an out-of-court agreement, if achievable, would save both sides a huge amount of money, since billable hours by teams of lawyers can quickly soar into fortunes. The mediator has just helped the parties develop their respective BATNAs. Either we find a mediated solution or this turns into a huge expense.
If a mediator were able to get the parties to the table, perhaps seeking articulated best outcomes from all parties is a start. While the outcomes may seem like fantasies because they are diametrically opposed to each other, a good mediator seeks to learn how high each element of best outcome is prioritized.
If, for example, librarians want sovereignty in selecting books to add to their collections, the mediator might hold a private caucus with them to ask if they have certain red lines in choosing books, to see, for instance, if there are limits to subject matter or limits to how graphic subjects might be expressed.
The mediator might learn, for example, that none of the professional librarians would order books that describe and promote sexual intercourse between children. Finding out examples of what sorts of books none of the librarians would ever obtain for their collections, possibly including the different red lines depending on elementary vs middle school vs high school libraries might be helpful.
Then a private caucus with the other party with the same inquiries might lead to emergence of other issues. For instance, a Christian-oriented party interested in banning books that offend a Biblical set of moral codes might cite their dismay at books in school libraries that they believe violate their religious freedom from indoctrination into what they regard as a heretical or immoral lifestyle. Specifics may emerge, such as books that depict or promote sex between children.
The mediator can elicit these ideas from both sides in a combination of private caucuses and general negotiating sessions. In the end, a mediator may be able to see what extreme examples might be important to all sides, but also may be able to see if there is a way to create acceptance of mutually agreed-upon standards, or a system to manage the specific challenges without turning to either lawyers or politicians. Perhaps a panel made up of an equal number of experts chosen by all contending parties could make the difficult decisions in the future.
In any mediation, it's important for the mediator to avoid language such as, "Here is what I recommend." A mediator is not an arbitrator. Rather, nearly the same guidance can happen with language that never steals power or sovereignty from the parties, language more akin to, "Okay, listening to everyone's deep concerns and preferences, here is what I'm hearing you all say might work."
This language preserves and enhances the power of the parties while helping them notice lines of sight that may be opening to a workable solution.
The approach of the mediator is openness, curiosity, and suspension of judgment. Translating this into our daily lives can keep us in practice and blunt the likelihood of destructive conflicts on the regular.
When I am insulted, berated, or attacked in some way, I do much better when I try to think like a mediator first, before I react. My 20-year-old self would likely say, "Eff you, you have no idea what you're talking about," and the battle is on. My Old Guy with mediation training self-talk (if I have my act together), goes to challenges like, "Wow, I need to learn why this person is after me so bluntly. What did I do to them? What do they see in me that offends them?"
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-christian-groups-helped-parents-pull-books-some-pennsylvania-school-2023-06-24/
No comments:
Post a Comment