The subject of this post may seem a bit heavy, but what I have in mind is conflict resolution in the classroom. I want to see what insight can be gleaned from looking into mediation techniques used in the broader, global political ‘classroom,’ filled with characters who shift between the roles of ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ and ‘neutral,’ depending on perspective and on the available information.
In my life and my profession, I am learning how when communication shuts down there is little hope for progress or change. We all need to practise the art of talking it out!
It may be difficult, but this…
*********************
- …is much better than this.
I really loved what Cris Currie had to say in his article of the same title, June 2002:
“In answer to the question, should we negotiate with terrorists, Roger Fisher (writer in the second edition of Getting To Yes) replies with a resounding yes, because the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence. But doesn’t negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn’t have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won’t this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened.
What is much more certain and important is that a refusal to negotiate indicates rejection of the other side, and rejection creates serious physical and psychological obstacles to problem solving, because it prevents clear communication from taking place, and it guarantees defensiveness and resistance to change. We simply need to make it clear that a decision to negotiate does not mean acceptance of the other side’s behavior. We can in fact love our enemies and hate what they do, but to prove it we need to act in loving ways by accepting their humanity enough to negotiate for mutual gains. Each side need get no more than that to which they are entitled. And we need to remember that regardless of how we respond, there are no guaranteed results, except that forced agreements are always very unstable.
We need not accept their values or their conduct. What we do accept is the humanity underneath as deserving of due process with the realization that we could be at least partially wrong in our perceptions and conclusions (because of stereotyping, attribution bias, projection, misinformation, inadequate data, etc.). According to Fisher and Brown in their 1988 book Getting Together, we should consider all others as equals, that is “equally human, equally caught up in the situation, equally entitled to have rights, and equally entitled to have any interests and views taken into account” (Fisher & Brown, p. 160). In reality, that is a fairly minimal level of acceptance. But shouldn’t the enemy have to give something for this kind of acceptance? No, bargaining over acceptance is like bargaining over apology: acceptance is only effective when freely given, not when it’s withheld. It is coercive to use acceptance as a bargaining chip; it creates distrust and it helps further entrench a defensive, adversarial relationship.”
http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie4.cfm




Very practical for our students, here is a really great link to a mediation webpage designed to help children become mediators, in order to become confident resolvers of conflict!!! Just click on the mediation image below, it’ll take you there.
