Towards an Ethos of Peace

Assessing Transformative and Narrative Approaches to Mediation

Presently, the term mediation represents a growing realm of discourse centered on

the better understanding and resolution of human conflict. Due to the increasingly

complex nature of modern society, the changing landscape of human interaction has

required this practice to expand its scope of consideration and applicability (Bush &

Folger, 2005). As such, new schools of thought have emerged over the past several

decades motivated by evolving cultural narratives and aligned with the different value

assessments inherent within each (Winsdale & Monk, 2008). So far, this growth has seen the distinction of new perspectives that consider elements such as oppression, social

justice, and satisfaction as a fundamental part of their practice. However, as technology

continues to establish a new context for human connection, society and the resulting

nature of human interaction begin to diminish their reliance on the compartmentalization

of life in favor of more flexible, responsive, and integrative approaches to living and

resolving conflict. It is in this sense, Bush and Folger (2005) take a stand in support of

the Transformative Approach and Winsdale and Monk (2008) in support of the Narrative

Approach. At heart, each emphasize the value of separating individuals and their

relationships from the negativity of conflict, yet, there remain distinct variations in the

way each envision how to achieve this end.

The practice of mediation is one that has been developing over the past several

decades in response to the ongoing and intensifying element of human conflict

throughout all areas of society. While its beginnings were situated within the judicial

system as a means of facilitating resolution to cases and relieving the burden on the court,

in the technologically and socially complex state of society today the need for effective

pathways to resolution of conflict have drawn the practice of mediation out into the world

(Bush & Folger, 2005). Yet, despite the good intentions in establishing this domain, left

unexamined and applied to increasingly complex social issues “mediation has turned out

to be a dangerous instrument for increasing the power of the state over the individual and

the power of the strong over the weak” (Bush & Folger, 2005, Loc. 221). As such, there

has been a growing need to explore the deeper values, goals, and world-views present

within the current approach in order to better develop its use for various applications.

Resulting from this inquiry several new and divergent stories have arisen that suggest the

role of mediation is an important one that applies to issues of all kinds. Nonetheless, there

are strong differences people hold over what underlying goals are most important and

how each type of issue should be approached (Loc. 153).

For Bush and Folger (2005), the primary approach to mediation is one that centers

on the transformative potential within the relationships people hold to themselves and

each other. According to their understanding, “the unique promise of mediation lies in its

capacity to transform the quality of conflict interaction itself, so that conflicts can

actually strengthen both the parties themselves and the society they are part of” (Bush &

Folger, 2005, Loc. 195). This is a valuable perspective because it situates conflict within

the full range of human experience instead of isolating it in an attempt to resolve only

those aspects of the issue that can be negotiated in the space of achieving compromise or

agreement. As a result, this provides greater access to identifying and resolving the

underlying structures within peoples lives that manifest in conflict. In this understanding,

transformation is primarily achieved through ensuring the support of two fundamental

human experiences, empowerment and recognition. In this sense, empowerment is

understood as “the restoration to individuals of a sense of their value and strength and

their own capacity to make decisions and handle life’s problems” (Loc. 297) and it is this

context that supports individuals in generating the confidence and creativity to approach

their issues and their life in a new way. Additionally, recognition demonstrates, “the

evocation in individuals of acknowledgement, understanding, or empathy for the situation

and the views of the other” (Loc. 297) which allows people to build bridges that serve to

support others in fostering their own empowerment and creating collaborative unions that

amplify the power and possibility available to them as individuals and to society as a

whole.

For Winsdale and Monk (2005), the Narrative approach offers another promising

perspective on mediation. Within this perspective the elements of meaning that

encompass human life are woven together to create dynamic living stories that are

provided motivation from the past and serve to shape the future. It is in this sense, stories

have the power to “shape experiences, influence mind-sets, and construct relationships”

(Loc. 189). Therefore, they play a significant role in addressing conflict through not only

providing greater insight into why the issue exists but also in distancing individuals from

identifying with and becoming encompassed by the problem itself. Ultimately, this serves

to redefine the relationship for those in conflict by orienting the mediation towards

defining the positive outcome of the experience rather than reliving the negativity of the

dispute (Winsdale & Monk, 2005; Hansen, 2003). In this, individuals are working for an

amiable outcome through a context of success that is generated by the creation of a

positive story instead of attempting to reach resolution out of the pre-existing narrative of

dis-ease and conflict. In this understanding, the story one lives by gives life to the

outcomes that are achieved in ones actions.

As such, it is apparent that a similar set of values are present in both the

transformative and narrative approach that serves to redefine how people interact with

and view conflict; however, there remain distinct areas where the two differ. One such

factor lies within the underlying goals upon which success is measured. For Bush &

Folger (2005) this is reflected primarily in changing the experience of the individual in

order to restructure their relationship to conflict. While, for Winsdale & Monk (2008), it

lies within changing the story in which one lives in order to then change their resulting

experience. While both are aimed at distinguishing a new experience of conflict, each

takes a different approach to doing so. As one focuses on the relationships of individuals

the other brings attention to the structure of meaning that gives rise to those relationships.

Through this there are different access points utilized to facilitate change. For the

transformative approach it is achieved primarily through listening to the individuals in

conversation and guiding it towards empowerment and recognition. While, for the

narrative approach, this is achieved through actively conversing which allows individuals

and the mediator to co-create the new story through which following actions will take

place.

Another factor lies within the overarching consideration of cultural structure and

discourse each approach takes. While the former utilizes a process of that isolates and

identifies issues in order to better examine them, the latter sees such elements as

inherently embedded in ones experience as a whole and does not find use in removing

them to be viewed outside of this context. As a result, the narrative approach seeks to

change the space in which individuals are dealing with conflict much like that of the

transformative method, however, it does so in a way that provides greater access to

individually and collaboratively changing these scripts through focusing this energy on

the structures in which individuals feelings and perspectives arise. As a result, there is a

more systematic essence to this methodology and, therefore, a more tangible sense of

change can be established.

Conflict arises for every individual throughout their life and manifests in various

ways. Focusing only on those aspects of the conflict itself may lead to compromises

understood as resolution, however, they do nothing to address the underlying factors that

contribute to the structure of conflict as a whole for individuals. As a result, both the

narrative and transformative approaches place greater emphasis on addressing this aspect

of conflict interaction but do so in their own distinct way. For Bush & Folger (2005), this

is achieved through a focus on the individuals reported behavior and growth in the

experience while, for Winsdale and Monk (2008), it is through the structures of narrative

which articulate and give rise to resulting experiences. Through focusing on the ways in

which these methodologies are similar and distinct, both can be utilized collaboratively to

better address the growing need and changing topography of conflict in the modern

world. Due to the complex nature of conflict today, both approaches ultimately

understand an equally dynamic response is required to effect real and lasting change.

References

Bush, R. A. B. & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict

through empowerment and recognition (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Hansen, T. (2003). The Narrative approach to mediation. Mediate.com. Retrieved from

http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansenT.cfm (Links to an external site.)

Winslade, J. & Monk, G. (2008). Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of

conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.