Mediation, power, and cultural difference

Abstract

Although mediators often think of themselves as advancing a positive and progressive orientation to conflict, mainstream facilitative mediation practice subordinates conflict to harmony and does not recognize non-Western orientations to disputing. This is closely related to a lack of awareness and recognition of different ways of being or versions of selfhood. In Western mediation practice, conflict and violence are typically seen as destructive and unhelpful ways of being, and this does not allow for the constitutive and productive role of conflict in many non-Western traditions. The playing out of these assumptions in mediation practice effects an operation of power, which is particularly significant in intercultural mediations. These intercultural situations and the accompanying operation of power arise regardless of whether the dispute is among people of similar cultural background or between different cultures when-they simply require that mediations are provided through the dominant Western culture. This paper explores this operation of power through an interplay between theory and practice. In particular I draw on both the work of Michel Foucault and personal experience as a mediator, including involvement with training and related activities. In adopting a Foucaultian approach, the paper expands on the previous contributions of George Pavlich (1996a; 1996b) and adjusts for the approach taken by Dale Bagshaw (2001). The paper draws upon an assumed understanding of facilitative mediation practice and demonstrates points by reference to intercultural issues between Aboriginal and non-Indigenous Australian peoples. Through this approach, it is shown that in intercultural mediations explicit and implicit mediator techniques lead disputants to behave and perform their selves in ways consistent with the goals of mediation and Western norms around conflict and selfhood. The specificity of this analysis means that the findings are indicative and explorative rather than comprehensive. Nevertheless, the results highlight the need to consider ways in which researchers and mediators can begin to mitigate this operation of power and respond to cultural difference in ethical ways. The final section of the paper shows that 1 the very structure and underlying assumptions of contemporary facilitative mediation require that we be more circumspect about the postmodern possibility of valuing cultural difference in mediation than Bagshaw (2001) allows. For this reason, the paper concludes that a long-term process of cultural learning, including elicitive dialogue across cultural difference, is necessary to develop processes which respond to different approaches to conflict and modes of selfhood. Conflict, Self and Culture The question of normative orientation to conflict is often discussed in primary or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) circles, particularly in training courses, with many practitioners and advocates of mediation seeing themselves effecting a transformation in the orientation of themselves and their clients...

Governance and Susceptibility in Conflict Resolution: Possibilities Beyond Control

“…And while I indicate that parties may not perform selves as the mediator and liberal governance requires (Brigg 2003), I do not elaborate the possibilities that might arise from this. This relative silence elides the possibility that resistance, and non-regulatory (rather than regulatory) possibilities, might be enacted within conflict resolution, and that these may contain (unanticipated) possibilities for transforming governance relations in conflict resolution beyond current arrangements.…”

Challenging Cross-Cultural Notions of Perceptions of Interstate Conflict Resolution between Arab/Muslims and Westerners

“…Appreciating these cultural divergences is fundamental, as they can facilitate misunderstanding, produce conflict, and distrust during cross-cultural interaction (Ashki, 2006;Gartzke & Gleditsch, 2006). The salience of cross-cultural divergences are compounded by historical experiences which not only affect individual/collective behavior and the quality of bilateral interaction, but equally impact the manner in which conflict is perceived, negotiated and resolved (Ashki, 2006;Briggs, 2003;Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, &Miall, 2011).…”

“…Imposition of Western techniques, consequently, has undermined the success of these imposed conflict resolution programs, while simultaneously marginalizing and devaluing indigenous conceptualizations of conflict and conflict resolution, which might otherwise be more appropriate in context (Briggs, 2003;Irani, 1999). The tendency is problematic because Western structural methods concentrate on social and political elites, while institutionalizing conflict termination, management, or resolution within a state's governing framework (Gardner Feldman, 2008).…”

“…Thereafter, we explored the principles of satisfaction of interests and needs of stakeholders as advocated by Western scholars (Adelman, 2005;Briggs, 2003;Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, & Miall, 2011;Reimann, 2004). It should be recalled that Arab/Muslim scholars express diverse views toward these principles, as they must be considered in relation to Islamic teachings and norms.…”

Comparative Analysis of Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution in the Context of Iraq – United States Bilateral Relations

“…For instance, the civil rights struggle in the United States in the 1960s expanded individual rights to the African-American community (Abdalla and others, 2002: 95). Hence, while most of the Arab/Muslim literature perceives conflict as negative, which contradicts Western theory (Bercovitch and others, 2009;Briggs, 2003;Galtung, 2007;Lederach and Maiese, 2003;Lederach, 1995;Reimann, 2004); there are some Arab/Muslim scholars who believe that conflict has the potentiality to produce positive benefits when violence can be managed.…”