Neutrality in mediation

Concerning the question of the nature of the third-person party’s role in the mediation process, it is paramount that the issue of neutrality is clarified. In order to make this manageable, a differentiation of the term mediation shall be made, primarily using the issue of neutrality as a distinctive feature.

According to that, one manifestation of mediation is pure mediation. „Mediation (that is, ‘pure’ mediation) involves the intervention of a skilled and experienced intermediary who attempts to facilitate a negotiated settlement to the dispute on a set of specific substantive issues” (Fisher & Keashly, 1991, 33).

The other manifestation of mediation can be labelled power mediation. “Mediation with muscle (or what might be termed ‘power’

media tion) ... includes the use of leverage or coercion by the third party in the form of promised rewards or threatened punishments. In a very real sense, the third party becomes a member of a negotiating triad and bargains with each party, using carrots and sticks, to mo ve them toward a settlement” (Fisher & Keashly, 1991, 33).

Both manifestations of mediation imply different approaches regarding neutrality. In the first form, neutrality takes the main priority, while in the second form it can sometimes be useful, but at other times can be an obstacle to a successful mediation. The role of the third-person party can be shaped according to its desired function. Its primary goal is to achieve a settlement that also satisfies the third-person party. Accordingly, in the second form of mediation, power is a central criterion for a successful mediation, whereas in the first form specifically the powerlessness of the third-person party is the condition for success.

Smith has pointed out that this distinction is necessary in order to clarify the question of the success of mediation. These two manifestations are different approaches that cannot be generally compared to each other regarding their successes. “In fact, it may be unfair to make such a comparison, as both may be ef fective under certain circumstances, and both options should be retained for that reason“ (Smith, 1994, 448).

In terms of pure mediation, the role of the third-person party is non-directive, non-coercive, and non-evaluating, but instead supporting and diagnostic. It primarily takes care of the process optimisation. In terms of power mediation, the role of the third-person party is oriented towards the outcome. This means that rewarding, punishing and judging behaviour is used to motivate the parties to reach an agreement. Should the main priority lie in the kind of result afforded by the process of mediation, then the strategies, even those concerning impartiality or neutrality, must be flexible.

Moore has pointed out that a dogmatic position is not helpful in this situation. Such a narrow viewpoint

... ignores the range of successful models for practice, the variety of disputes, the specific capabilities of the parties, the expressed needs and goals of the disputants, and the diversity of cultural con texts in which interventions are practised. A more productive

ap proach would be to explore the specific situation and adapt the pro cess to meet the needs of the parties (Moore 1996, 54).

The advances embodied in conflict management procedures like mediation, have the principle effect that people are again made participants in (conflict-) resolutions immediately pertaining to their concerns. The realisation that the sustainability of conflict resolutions is the greatest when all involved parties remain or become competent and active actors reveals the underlying democracy-theoretical meaning of mediation (Zillessen, 2005, 90).

Condusion

In conclusion, it is a significant duty for social actors in general and especially social services to develop suitable and innovative forms of conflict management and make these accessible to society.

This embraces an important political function: societies are held together by their conflicts – and the development of a constructive culture of conflict poses a prime challenge.

References

Albers, G. (2000). Zivile Bearbeitung ethno-sozialer Konflikte: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen konsensorientierter Interventionsverfahren. Frankfurt/M.

Banks, M. (1986). Mediation. In: Laszlo, E./Yoo, J.Y. (Eds.), World Encyclopaedia of Peace. Oxford. 589-592.

Burton, J. (1990). Conflict. Resolution and Prevention. Houndsmills/

London.

Coser, L.A. (1972). Theorie sozialer Konflikte. Neuwied, Berlin

Dubiel, H. (1995). Gehegte Konflikte. „Merkur“, 49Jg., Nr. 12, 1095-1106.

Fisher, R.J., Keashley, L. (1991). The Potential Contplementarity of Mediation and Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention. “Journal of Peace Research”. Vol. 28, Nr. 1, 29-42.

Geißel, B. (2007). Zur (Un-)Möglichkeit von Local Governance mit Zivilgesellschaft: Konzepte und empirische Befunde. In: Schwalb, L./Walk, H. (ed.). Local Governance – mehr Transparenz durch Bürgernähe? Wiesbaden, 23-38.

Giegel, H.-J. (1998). Gesellschaftstheorie und Konfliktsoziologie. In: Ders.

(Eds.): Konflikt in modernen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main, 9-28.

Glasl, F. (2004). Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.

Gomez, P., Zimmerman, T. (1997). Unternehmensorganisation. Profile, Dynamik, Methodik. Frankfurt, New York.

Meyer, B. (1997). Formen der Konfliktregelung. Eine Einführung mit Quellen. Opladen.

Moore, C. W. (1996). The Mediation Process. Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco.

Nollmann, G. (1997). Konflikte in Interaktion, Gruppe und Organisation.

Zur Konfliktsoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Opladen.

Pruitt, D.G., Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict.

Buckingham.

Scimecca, J.A. (1993). Theory and Alternative Dispute Resolution:

A Contradiction in Terms? In: Sanddole, D., van der Merwe (Eds.):

Conflict Resolution. Theory and Practice. Integration and Application.

Manchester, New York. 211-221.

Simmel, G. (1992). Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung.

Frankfurt/M.

Smith, J.D. (1994). Mediator Impartiality: Banishing the Chimera.

“Journal of Peace Research”. Vol. 31, Nr. 4, 445-450.

Trenczek, T. (2005). Streitregelung in der Zivilgesellschaft. Jenseits von Rosenkrieg und Maschendrahtzaun. „Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie“, Bd. 26. H. 2, 227-247.

Vogt, W.R. (1997). Ist Gewalt zivilisierbar? Zur kritisch-reflexiven Friedenstheorie der Zivilisierung. In: Ders. (ed.). Gewalt und Konfliktbearbeitung. Befunde-Konzepte-Handeln. Baden-Baden, 11-53.

Zillessen, H. (2005). Demokratietheoretische Aspekte der Mediation. In:

Falk, G./Heintel, P., Krainz, E.E. (Ed.). Handbuch Mediation und Konfliktmanagement. Wiesbaden, 83-94.