Mediation Domain Names For Sale

ExpertMediation.com
MediationSolution.com
DivorceLawMediator.com
FamilyLawMediator.com
LosAngelesMediation.com

Inquire/offer: JerryLazar (at) gmail (dot) com.

Career Day Violence

At Career Day at my son's middle school, I conducted role-plays with the students to illustrate the mechanics and magic of mediation.

We'd establish a simple hypothetical problem, with multiple perspectives and interests, and give everyone a chance at suggesting possible resolutions -- sky's the limit, no constraints. The idea was to "wring dry the towel" of ideas -- "Good! What else?" -- and illustrate the multiplicity of potentially satisfying outcomes that diverge from the traditional zero-sum, win-lose scenario of courtrooms and battlefields.

I obviously had been fantasizing a beautiful lesson in negotiation and compromise and active listening and "underlying interests vs. intractible positions." Expanding the pie vs. dividing the pie. Collaborative peacemaking.

What was horrifying was the natural inclination of these students to adopt a "punishing" stance -- and instinctively offer a "lose-lose" verdict. Could this have been passed down from their parents? It certainly sounded that way: "You both have to give the [contested object] to me, and I'll keep it [or discard it], and you're both grounded for fighting."

Worse was the proclivity toward blatant violence: "He should smash him over the head with a rock and just take [the object of dispute] and run away." Or (from a girl): "Just kick him in the nuts and grab it from him, and tell him you'll kill him if he tells anybody." Again, these were pre-teens.

What's to blame? Parents? TV? Movies? Rap music? Violent videogames?

I ponder the ancient Myth of Redemptive Violence, as articulated by Walter Wink.

Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It’s what works. It seems inevitable, the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts.

He uses "Popeye" as an example:

In a typical segment, Bluto abducts a screaming and kicking Olive Oyl, Popeye’s girlfriend. When Popeye attempts to rescue her, the massive Bluto beats his diminutive opponent to a pulp, while Olive Oyl helplessly wrings her hands. At the last moment, as our hero oozes to the floor, and Bluto is trying, in effect, to rape Olive Oyl, a can of spinach pops from Popeye’s pocket and spills into his mouth.

Transformed by this gracious infusion of power, he easily demolishes the villain and rescues his beloved. The format never varies. Neither party ever gains any insight or learns from these encounters. They never sit down and discuss their differences. Repeated defeats do not teach Bluto to honour Olive Oyl’s humanity, and repeated pummellings do not teach Popeye to swallow his spinach before the fight.

But he draws parallels to all popular culture, and of course real life:

We have already seen how the myth of redemptive violence is played out in the structure of children’s cartoon shows (and is found as well in comics, video and computer games, and movies). But we also encounter it in the media, in sports, in nationalism, in militarism, in foreign policy, in televangelism, in the religious right, and in self-styled militia groups. What appears so innocuous in cartoons is, in fact, the mythic underpinnings of our violent society.

The psychodynamics of the TV cartoon or comic book are marvelously simple: children identify with the good guy so that they can think of themselves as good. This enables them to project out onto the bad guy their own repressed anger, violence, rebelliousness, or lust, and then vicariously to enjoy their own evil by watching the bad guy initially prevail. This segment of the show – where the hero suffers – actually consumes all but the closing minutes, allowing ample time for indulging the violent side of the self.

When the good guy finally wins, viewers are then able to reassert control over their own inner tendencies, repress them, and re-establish a sense of goodness without coming to any insight about their own inner evil. The villain’s punishment provides catharsis; one forswears the villain’s ways and heaps condemnation on him in a guilt-free orgy of aggression. Salvation is found through identification with the hero.

The Myth of Redemptive Violence is the simplest, laziest, most exciting, uncomplicated, irrational, and primitive depiction of evil the world has even known. Furthermore, its orientation toward evil is one into which virtually all modern children (boys especially) are socialised in the process of maturation.

So what can we do -- as parents, educators, mediators -- to offset this horrifying trend? Wink offers some solid ideas. What are yours?

Pax Corleone

An intriguing analysis of post-9/11 foreign-policy strategies, as viewed through the prism of "The Godfather," courtesy of John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell in The National Interest:

The aging Vito Corleone, emblematic of cold-war American power, is struck down suddenly and violently by forces he did not expect and does not understand, much as America was on September 11. Even more intriguingly, each of his three “heirs” embraces a very different vision of how the family should move forward following this wrenching moment. Tom Hagen, Sonny and Michael approximate the three American foreign-policy schools of thought—liberal institutionalism, neoconservatism and realism—vying for control in today’s disarranged world order.

Insightful parallels are drawn:

In Sonny, Tom is confronted with the cinematic archetype of the modern-day neoconservative hard-liner. Their resulting feud resembles the pitched political warfare between Democrats and neoconservatives that has come to dominate the American political landscape:

Tom Hagen, the liberal institutionalist: “We oughta hear what they have to say.”

Sonny, the neocon: “No, no more. Not this time, consigliere; no more meetings, no more discussions. . . . And do me a favor: no more advice on how to patch things up—just help me win alright?”

THE STRATEGY that ultimately saves the Corleone family from the Sollozzo threat and equips it for coping with multipolarity comes from Michael, the youngest and least experienced of the don’s sons. Unlike Tom, whose labors as family lawyer have produced an exaggerated devotion to negotiation, and Sonny, whose position as untested heir apparent has produced a zeal for utilizing the family arsenal, Michael has no formulaic fixation on a particular policy instrument. Instead, his overriding goal is to protect the family’s interests and save it from impending ruin by any and all means necessary. In today’s foreign-policy terminology, Michael is a realist.

Viewing the world through untinted lenses, he sees that the age of dominance the family enjoyed for so long under his father is ending. Alone among the three brothers, Michael senses that a shift is underway toward a more diffuse power arrangement, in which multiple power centers will jockey for position and influence. To survive and succeed in this new environment, Michael knows the family will have to adapt.

First, Michael relinquishes the mechanistic, one-trick-pony policy approaches of his brothers in favor of a “toolbox,” in which soft and hard power are used in flexible combinations and as circumstances dictate. While at various times he sides with Tom (favoring negotiation) or Sonny (favoring force), Michael sees their positions as about tactics and not about ultimate strategy, which for him is solely to ensure the survival and prosperity of the family. Thus, he is able to use Sonny’s “button men” to knock out those competitors he cannot co-opt, while negotiating with the rest as Tom would like. This blending of sticks and carrots ensures that Michael is ultimately a more effective diplomat than Tom and a more successful warrior than Sonny: when he enters negotiations, it is always in the wake of a fresh battlefield victory and therefore from a position of strength; when he embarks on a new military campaign, it is always in pursuit of a specific goal that can be consolidated afterwards diplomatically. Can any of the Iran policies currently being advocated by the leading candidates of both parties be said to proceed from these assumptions?

Second, Michael understands that no matter how strong its military or how savvy its diplomats, the Corleone family will not succeed in the multipolar environment ahead unless it learns to take better care of its allies. Like America after the Iraq War, the mafia empire that Michael inherits after the hit on Sonny possesses a system of alliances on the brink of collapse. Having flocked to the Corleone colors when the war against Sollozzo broke out, the family’s allies—like America’s in the “New” Europe—have little to show for the risks they have undertaken on the family’s behalf. Exhausted by war and estranged by Sonny’s Rumsfeld-like bullying, they have begun to question whether it is still in their interests to backstop a declining superpower that is apparently not interested in retaining their loyalty.

For all his talk about diplomacy, Tom believes in the family’s dominance; like today’s liberal institutionalists, he assumes that allies will continue to pay fealty to the family as a matter of course, as they have in the past. Similarly, Sonny assumes that other powers will gravitate toward the family or risk irrelevance; like most neocons, he sees allies as essentially disposable. By contrast, Michael intuitively grasps the value of family friends and the role that reciprocity plays in retaining their support for future crises. Thus, he is seen offering encouragement and a cigarette to Enzo, the timid neighborhood baker, whose help he enlisted to protect his father at the hospital. In this, he is imitating his father, Vito, who saw alliances as the true foundation of Corleone power and was mindful of the need to tend the family’s “base” of support, not only with big players like Clemenza and Tessio (Britain and France) but with small players like the cake maker and undertaker (Poland and Romania), whose loyalty he is seen cultivating in the opening scenes of the movie. As Michael knows, even small allies could potentially prove crucial in “tipping the scales” to the family’s advantage, as they will for America, once multipolarity is in full swing. Relearning the lost Sicilian art of alliance management will be necessary if Washington is to regain the confidence of the growing list of allies whose blood and treasure were frittered away, with little or nothing to show in return, in the sands of Iraq.

Finally, while addressing the family’s immediate need for a more versatile policy tool kit and shoring up its teetering alliances, Michael also takes steps to adjust the institutional playing field to the Corleones’ advantage on a more fundamental, long-term basis. Where Tom sees institutions as essentially static edifices that act as sources of power in their own right and Sonny sees them as needless hindrances to be bypassed, Michael sees institutions for what they truly are: conduits of influence that “reflect and ratify” but do not supplant deeper power realities. When the distribution of power shifts, institutions are sure to follow. As the Tataglias and Barzinis gain strength, Michael knows they will eventually overturn the existing order and replace it with an institutional rule book that better reflects their own needs and interests. Evidence that this process is already underway can be seen in the ease with which Sollozzo is able to enlist the support of a local precinct captain—the mafia equivalent of a UN mandate—when police loyalties formerly belonged to the Corleones.

Similarly, Washington increasingly finds the very institutions it created after World War II being used against it by today’s rising powers, even as new structures are being built (like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) that exclude the United States as a participant altogether.

Rather than ignoring this phenomenon like Tom or launching a frontal assault against it like Sonny, Michael sees it as a hidden opportunity. For Michael knows that if the family acts decisively, before the Tataglias and Barzinis have acquired a commanding margin of power, it can rearrange the existing institutional setup in ways that satisfy the new power centers but still serve vital Corleone interests. This he does through a combination of accommodation (dropping the family’s resistance to narcotics and granting the other families access to the Coreleones’ coveted New York political machinery) and institutional retrenchment (shifting the family business to Nevada and giving the other families a stake in the Corleones’ new moneymaker, Las Vegas gambling). In this way, Michael is able to give would-be rivals renewed incentives to bandwagon with, rather than balance against, the Corleone empire, while forcing them to deal with him on his own terms.

A similar technique could prove very useful for America in anticipating and preparing the way for the emergence of its Tataglias and Barzinis, the rising and resurgent powers. Such an effort at preemptive institutional regrouping, with decision making predicated on new global power realities, is vital if America’s new peer competitors are to eschew the temptation to position themselves as revolutionary powers in the new system. Doing so now, while the transition from the old system to multipolarity is still underway and before the wet cement of the new order has hardened, could help to ensure that while it no longer enjoys the privileged status of hegemon, America is able to position itself, like the Corleones, as the next best thing: primus inter pares—“first among equals.”

CAN ANY of the candidates vying to become the next president of the United States match Michael’s cool, dispassionate courage in the face of epochal change? Will they avoid living in the comforting embrace of the past, from which both Tom and Sonny ultimately could not escape? Or will they emulate Michael’s flexibility—to preserve America’s position in a dangerous world?

Cases Needed for TV Show

For a new mediation-themed reality show, we're looking for "Judge Judy" types of cases in Southern California -- involving neighbors or family members or co-workers or a retailer-customer conflict or a landlord-tenant dispute or, well, you get the idea.

If you know of such a situation, and the parties are willing to waive confidentiality in exchange for having their dispute settled for free, please let us know: JerryLazar (at) gmail dot com.

The Healing Power of Apology

Psychiatrist Aaron Lazare, author of the definitive study "On Apology," defines an effective apology as "the exchange of shame and power between the offender and the offended." It is a tool that can serve mediation participants well, and one that effective mediators should consider in the pursuit of resolution.

What constitutes an effective apology?

Beverly Engel's landmark book "Power of Apology" instructs that a meaningful apology must communicate the three R's: regret, responsibility and remedy. First, you must demonstrate that you recognize that your action (or inaction) caused harm, intentionally or not, and express empathy along with your acknowledgement of the injustice you caused. Second, accept blame, without excuses. Third, offer restitution, or at least a promise to not repeat the harm. "Unless all three of these elements are present," she writes, "the other person will sense that something is missing in your apology and he or she may feel shortchanged."

Psychologist Carl Schneider, a prominent divorce mediator in Maryland, believes, "Apology is central to mediation: mediation regularly involves disputes in which one party feels injured by the other. An apology is an act that is neither about problem-solving or negotiation. Rather, it is a form of ritual exchange where words are spoken that may enable closure. In the language of transformative mediation, apology represents an opportunity for acknowledgement that may transform relations. Most of us recognize its role in victim-offender mediation and community conferencing, but it can play an equally critical role in other forms of mediation, including employment and divorce mediation."

The mediator's role, Schneider argues, is to help people "get past the defensiveness and fear of blame that preclude apology. Apology can not be imposed. Parties often need preparation and help with the words." It is a task made harder by the nature of our jurisprudence system, which instills a real fear of admitting culpability: "The adversary system breeds defensiveness; apology requires vulnerability." He notes that we would do well to adopt aspects of the Japanese legal system, in which "apology plays a major role as a social restorative mechanism."

Lazare's "On Apology" includes fascinating historic examples of potent apologies that shaped and changed the destinies of entire nations. They serve as formidable guidelines for those of us who daily witness and attempt to repair the rifts of conflict.

He writes: "An apology heals because it allows the offending party to:

1 ...Maintain and repair the relationship.
2 ...Validate the offense.
3 ...Reestablish the moral code or social contract with the offended party.
4 ...Suffer for what he has done.
5 ...Acknowledge shame and remorse.
6 ...Show the offence was not personal and will not happen again.
7 ...Acknowledge there is a debt to be paid.
8 ...Give the victim the power to forgive or not to forgive.
9 ...Restore the dignity of the other at the cost of dignity of him- or herself.

"Because of all these things," Lazare concludes, "an effective apology is an act of honesty, an act of humility, an act of commitment, an act of generosity, and an act of courage."

The Mediation Channel

Many thanks to mediator extraordinaire Diane Levin for her kind words on the Mediation Channel , one of the best blogs on issues relating to alternative dispute resolution. When it comes to spreading the peacemaking gospel, she's the real deal.

I just spent a gratifying chunk of time there exploring common interests and fresh insights, ranging from spotting fake smiles and the fabled Monty Hall problem to a food-fight animation and the upcoming Pangea Day on May 10. Great stuff!

Violence as a Public Health Issue

In Blocking the Transmission of Violence , Alex Kotlowitz (nytimes.com) takes an in-depth look at innovative efforts to curb violence by treating it not as an ethical issue but as an infectious disease:

CeaseFire’s founder, Gary Slutkin, is an epidemiologist and a physician who
for 10 years battled infectious diseases in Africa. He says that violence directly mimics infections like tuberculosis and AIDS, and so, he suggests, the treatment ought to mimic the regimen applied to these diseases: go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source. “For violence, we’re trying to interrupt the next event, the next transmission, the next violent activity,” Slutkin told me recently. “And the violent activity predicts the next violent activity like H.I.V. predicts the next H.I.V. and TB predicts the next TB.” Slutkin wants to shift how we think about violence from a moral issue (good and bad people) to a public health one (healthful and unhealthful behavior). ...

In his book “The Bottom Billion,” Paul Collier argues that one of the characteristics of many developing countries that suffer from entrenched poverty is what he calls the conflict trap, the inability to escape a cycle of violence, usually in the guise of civil wars. Could the same be true in our inner cities, where the ubiquity of guns and gunplay pushes businesses and residents out and leaves behind those who can’t leave, the most impoverished?

Slutkin sees a direct parallel to the early history of seemingly incurable infectious diseases. “Chinatown, San Francisco in the 1880s,” Slutkin says. “Three ghosts: malaria, smallpox and leprosy. No one wanted to go there. Everybody blamed the people. Dirty. Bad habits. Something about their race. Not only is everybody afraid to go there, but the people there themselves are afraid at all times because people are dying a lot and nobody really knows what to do about it. And people come up with all kinds of other ideas that are not scientifically grounded — like putting people away, closing the place down, pushing the people out of town. Sound familiar?”