|
Introduction:
According to Suzanne Ghais, program manager at CDR Associates in
Boulder, Colorado, exploring the past is necessary if mediators hope to
understand the conflict from the parties perspectives. Stories from the past help to
contextualize the dispute as well as explain parties' current perceptions and reactions.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Exploring the Past
Suzanne Ghais
Program manager at CDR Associates, Boulder, Colorado
| |
Q: It's quite common for someone to
bring up an example from a time to which everyone else thinks is completely
irrelevant but for that person is very alive, and very present.
A: And again, if you look at deep-rooted broader social conflicts, I think
you're going to find a lot of that, in fact I know you'll find a lot of that.
When did this conflict start? Chris Mitchell at ICAR used to talk about that,
you ask when the conflict started and you get very different answers from the
different sides. Ask what is the history of what happened here and you get very
different stories. Ask what were the key turning points or key traumas were
along the way and you get very different answers.
But it is important to explore the past. I don't agree with some of the
standard community mediation rhetoric that says future focus. I don't think you
can do that. I think you have to explore the past, and often in some depth, not
to get to an agreement about who did what to whom. Often you can't, but to
understand that for each person and group involved, how the past affects their
perceptions now, how it affects their ability to trust, how it affects their
over-reactions perhaps, or their tendency to interpret a current event in a
different way.
You can see this at all levels, I think you can see it in international
conflicts, you can see it in marriages. A spouse had some difficult experience
with that spouse. Maybe an ex-spouse or an ex-girlfriend, boyfriend in the past,
then they'll be on hyper-alert for that thing being done to them again. They'll
over-interpret "Oh! Don't you dare try to blame me again, I'm tired of
being blamed on unfairly." "Well I wasn't blaming you, lay-off. Now
I'm pissed off cause you
" You know what I'm saying, those cyclical
things. You have to get into the past; you have to explore the past.
Q: Sounds like, if nothing else to understand where a party's reaction might
be coming from, the context.
A: Exactly, and to understand their story, to understand their narrative.
Understand what is the story from their point of view. Who are the good and evil
characters? What was the climax? What was the dénouement of the story? You have
to understand it. Now you have to structure that conversation, so that it
doesn't become a very unconstructive debate about who did what to whom, and
when, and I did not say that, and you did too say that.
Q: How do you keep it from going there?
A: You have to work in advance. You have to do work before the parties come
together. Then you coach the parties on how to describe what they're talking
about in a way that will get the other person in a frame of mind to listen and
not to resist and be defensive. And it's hard.
|