As waves of nationalism begin to unsettle democratic institutions, as ideologies driven by hatred conspire to digitally divide millions, as 8 billion people are instigated to talk more and listen less – dialogue remains relevant and mediators are valued more than ever. In order to facilitate dialogue between polarised perspectives, professional mediators are expected to present themselves as physically, emotionally and intellectually equidistant from either disputant in the mediation. In the current context, however, especially with the situation in Manipur, should peacekeepers in India have a say?
Is it safe for a mediator to condemn the burning issues of communal hatred, discrimination and violence, without being misunderstood for taking a political stand? As inhabitants of a free world, and proponents of safe spaces for dialogue, shouldn’t mediators have the liberty to genuinely demonstrate their true endorsement of value systems of the societies they live and operate in? Curiously, shouldn’t the individual facilitating the consensus of perspectives be an open book on his or her perspectives?
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Perspectives are nurtured – an illustration
A news story flashes on TV – a mob in India murders a man in broad day light on a busy street because he was in possession of some meat he had purchased from the butcher. At home, a family watches. The father selects what he wants to draw from the news telecast. This selection is guided by his sub-conscious; he then interprets the selected part of the event and concludes, “That man deserved it, he should respect the culture!” His wife is seated right next to him watching the same news report. She selects what she wants out of it, again guided by her subconscious, interprets it in a different way, and concludes differently, “How can a man be killed for his choice of food?” Their daughter, overhearing their conversation, says, “Let’s keep culture and choice aside for a moment. We live in a lawful society, and the law guides us in dispute. The mob members are simply murderers!”
Remember, the above three views stem from members of the same family, which means same bloodline, caste, class, religion and whatever else that divides our race. These extreme perspectives are influenced by their respective experiences. They have viewed the same event through different filters. These filters are defined by different sets of values and ideologies, beliefs inherited and acquired, their experience to different cultures, the kind of education they have had and the childhood experiences they have been through, including those which they are unable to articulate as they had encountered them at a time when they had not learned to speak. People are not born with perspectives they are nurtured.
A mediator’s perspective – does it matter?
Some of us are conscious of our biases, but most others are unaware of these predispositions rooted in our sub-conscious. Mediators are no exception. Mediators who believe to possess some kind of superhuman, higher level of immortal neutrality are only misrepresenting themselves to society. Mediators who claim that they can walk into a mediation with a clean slate are kidding themselves. “Mediators acquire no waiver of exception from standard bias merely because they constantly profess their role to be professionally neutral, non-judgmental,” writes Robert Benjamin
Mediators, like most human beings, have strong moral, ideological or religious values and unconscious biases. Whether publicly expressed or not, mediators privately hold views on social issues, have political leanings, possess religious beliefs and have their own ideas of social, cultural and religious morality. Therefore, the question is – does it only become a conflict of interest, if expressed? Does a mediator lose her neutrality only by speaking up on a social issue? If so, shouldn’t it concern parties and lawyers in understanding the mind of their mediator who hasn’t published her perspectives on matters related to their issue?
For those of us who subscribe to Bush and Folger’s suggestion that mediation can advance social justice, the natural corollary would be that mediators are allowed to express their views on issues relating to social justice, in relation to events outside mediation. In the US and UK, many mediators openly shared their reflections on ‘Black Lives Matter’, the climate crisis and the ‘Me Too’ movement. The authors ask – should mediators in India follow suit and take a stand on racial, gender and religious discrimination?
Mediators, who choose to stay silent on matters of violence, hatred and discrimination in their society run the risk of being branded as ‘mute spectators’ to social inequities. When one of the authors shared a webinar listing recently among his WhatsApp connections, an acquaintance commented, “You mediators are spineless beings”. A stray remark, but an allegation worth pondering upon. Those championing human rights might soon start looking down on a mediator’s indifferent participation on social issues, despite our defence of ‘neutrality’.
In appointing a mediator, besides assessing professional credentials, disputants and their lawyers often study the mediators’ social background – to ensure no compromise on neutrality. For instance, a mediator who is deeply religious may find it incompatible with his religious beliefs to facilitate a dispute concerning a gay relationship; or a mediator who grew up in a radically patriarchal ecosystem may not understand the idea of gender equality; or a mediator who is brought up in an environment of caste, religious or racial discrimination may not find such intolerance unnatural – and fail to recognize power imbalances at the table. Therefore, mediators must be encouraged to express themselves publicly so parties get to know the face behind a resumé. This would help weed out ‘high conflict personalities’, as described by Bill Eddy in his book Trump Bubbles.
The authors encourage the emergence of a politically-active mediator. It’s time to address the elephant in the room, speak about things that are not right in society and we can find encouragement in mediator Ken Cloke’s words, “It should not, I think, be necessary to surrender one’s political ideas, beliefs, values, ethics and morality in order to mediate or facilitate dialogues between people with opposing views. Being ‘neutral’ in these conversations should not mean surrendering the freedom to think or have an opinion on important political issues. Otherwise, we capitulate to bullying, blackmail and intimidation.”
(Jonathan Rodrigues is a Certified Mediator and Author of ‘Mediation Simplified’, while A J Jawad is a Lawyer and Senior Mediator Trainer)
