Tough stuff in mediation
This past weekend, I attended the final sessions of mediation training that I talked about a few entries ago. Again, it was a fantastic experience, and it certainly gave me a lot to think about. But one issue in particular is really troubling me, and it’s caused me do a bit more thinking about mediation as a process and a vehicle for change.
One role-play that I observed was a case involving a landlord whose tenant owed her four weeks of rent. The case seemed fairly straightforward, except for one major issue: the landlord refused to sign a welfare form that would have enabled the tenant to receive rent money from the government. Why? Because the landlord was morally opposed to welfare. She simply did not accept “that kind of money” for rent, and refused to condone the use of welfare by signing her tenant’s form.
Earlier in the training, I had wondered what would happen if a party in a mediation said something racist or discriminatory. What should the mediators do? What is it their job to do? If they protested the party’s attitude, their comments may seem directive or judgmental, and they would seriously risk losing perceived neutrality with both parties. But is it right to let destructive attitudes and personal attacks sour the discussion and potentially ruin the mediation?
I think I was finding this dilemma especially tough on a personal level. The realistic half of my brain tells me that there’s no way that a two-hour mediation session could change a person’s deep-seated beliefs about life. I’ve always believed very strongly (for no real reason, just as a gut feeling) that staying away from dialogue on these types of tough issues, and refusing to talk about them because they seem unchangeable, is at best unproductive and at worst destructive. That there must be a way to confront prejudices without judging the people who hold them, and to understand how biases originate without attempting to correct that history.
In this landlord-tenant role play that I observed, the mediators consciously chose not to probe the landlord when it became clear that she was prejudiced against people on welfare. This makes sense to me in a way, but it is also troubling. These types of issues are definitely wrapped in a host of strong emotions, but why does that mean that we as mediators can’t “go there?” To me, the emotional element is all the more reason to try and unpack prejudicial attitudes in a mediation.
But I think it’s also important for me to remember that although this approach might work for me, other mediators may not feel comfortable confronting these issues – and that’s okay. Mediators are neutral, but they have their own personalities, styles, and comfort levels (mediators are people, too!) – and that might mean that it’s not always appropriate to confront prejudice as a mediator.
Put bluntly, I think one of my biggest challenges will be to accept that I can’t change the whole world in a mediation session.
Clearly, the unrealistic half of my brain wins out most of the time.