Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Dialogical self theory and mediation. Toward a self-narrative model of conflict resolution
.pdf
4. Towards an Experimental Self-Narrative Model of Mediation
4.1. DST: implications for conflict resolution
Inspired by pragmatist tradition, Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (2010) on final
pages of their book suggest some practical implications of the dialogical self theory,
among other issues for conflict resolution. Dialogical Self Theory starts with the
proposition that conflict and dialogue are not mutually exclusive, but that conflict
under some circumstances can serve as starting point for dialogue. From the view of
DST conflict resolution must not always result in reaching solutions. Sometimes one
simply needs to reach a deeper understanding of one another. In the following will be
presented main sources of conflict and their counter-remedies from the DST point of
view. Some of them will be critically examined in terms of feasibility and applicability
to the field of mediation.
Emotions and awareness of differences
DST asserts that in conflict awareness of differences can lead to its resolution,
or at least, its mitigation. However, ahead of awareness conflict triggers strong negative
emotions such as anger and anxiety. On this Hermans and Hermans- Konopka (2010:
346) refer to Lambie and Marcel's (2002) distinction between “first-order
phenomenology”, where emotion experience (e.g. anger) bears pretence to
phenomenological “truth” (e.g. “he is a bastard”) and “second-order awareness”, where
there is a reflexive awareness of the current emotional experience (e.g. “I'm furious with
him”). The emotion experience alludes to “how the world is” or “how the people are”,
i.e. contains exclusive truth claims about the other. Thereby, emotions may seriously
hinder the way for dialogue. When emotions are given a priority, they leave no space for
awareness. In the case of awareness, the one recognizes that he experiences or thinks
about the other or the self in a particular way, i.e. he accepts that he perceives the world
from his particular perspective. Acceptance of another perspective allows dialogue.
Dialogue starts once disputing parties understand that there is more than one perspective
to a conflict matter. Mutual perspective taking is thus a precondition for a dialogue. In
51
retrospective, Bush and Folger have already expressed, and prior to them G.H. Mead,
the necessity of perspective taking in everyday interaction and in mediation sessions,
respectively.
Difference in content and style
On the example of a workplace conflict, Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (cf.
2010: 351-353) present another issue that might be important in conflict analysis in
general such as content-style discrepancies. Sometimes people agree to work with one
another because they are content with what is important for them. On the other hand,
they may disguise the ways of how they achieve purposes on the basis of differences in
age, gender, worldview etc. Then, there is a conflict in style. To overcome this crisis
one is to make shadow positions explicit. They use to call them shadow (or disowned)
positions because people are not usually aware of them as they are often expressed in the
style of one's behavior.
Role confusion
Misunderstandings in social interaction, in particular emerged from role or
social position confusion, may also occur, if there is a multiplicity of positions of
parties involved, Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (cf. 2010: 353-354) continue.
Specifically, role confusion comes up when one party acts on the basis of one
particular social position, whereas the other party expects him to behave from another
social position. They offer a typical example of role confusion in teacher-student
relationships. Suppose teacher may vividly discuss with his student the topic of her
future assignment and both actively exchange on it, so that in the eyes of the student the
tutor is perceived as a dedicated supporter of her ideas. And as soon as the student
receives the mark that does not meet her expectations, she gets disappointed. Reflection
shows that obviously, the student misunderstood the social role of her tutor as being at
first place critical and judgmental, despite his true and authentic engagement in
52
discussions. Awareness of the existence of role confusion, allows to soften some
misunderstandings that occur in social interaction.
Narratives and story-telling
Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (cf. 2010: 349) alongside of advocates of
postmodern social constructionist theory underline the supreme importance of narration
of stories or histories in conflict resolution7. Crucial in understanding of conflict is
unraveling its prehistory and its historical context. According to Hermans and HermansKonopka, engagement in construction of a “third position” (e.g. through common
activities) can lead conflicting parties to reconciliation. This is very much in tune with
the common definition of the role of mediator: a good mediator helps parties to develop
the third perspective or a shared understanding of the conflict matter (cf.
Langfeldt/Nothdurft, 2007). The role of the mediator from the perspective of dialogical
self theory can be defined as meta-position engaging parties in self-reflection and
dialogue to enable the emergence of new perspectives that would offer a solid ground
for clarifying and exploring solutions:
“...stimulate the reconciliation of conflicts by the creation of a third position that transcends the
interests, emotions, and expectations that are associated with the conflicting ones. A third position can
also be created by inviting a facilitator who transforms the dialogue between the conflicting parties into a
trialogue that includes the facilitator. The facilitator represents a meta-position and may even stimulate
the development of a common position. The facilitator invites the parties to engage in self- reflection
and dialogue and stimulates the emergence of new perspectives from which the conflict can be clarified
and solutions explored” (Hermans/Hermans-Konopka, 2010: 360).
To sum up, the central for DST is the proposition that dialogue between
individuals can be successful only when it accompanies dialogue within individuals.
From the perspective of DST in the process of conflict resolution it is first of all
important to raise awareness of parties about their inner multiple positions. Some
positions are tangible, and some are intangible (as in case of shadow positions).
Emotions are given its own distinct place in DST, as well. Strong negative emotions
and especially truth claims that they provoke can be insurmountable obstacle for a
7
Among recent models of mediation Narrative Mediation is based on this approach to conflict resolution.
53
good dialogue. On the other hand, the reversed emotions (counter-emotions) can provide
a very strong motivation for moving out of the conflict. Bearing in mind DST's
guidelines for conflict resolution, one can draw a conclusion that in case of
mediation a third party is constantly to invite disputing parties for an act of self-
reflection for the purpose of unraveling inner positions and emotions in order to
empower them at bestowing awareness and recognition for one another.
But how to make parties self-reflect during a mediation session? If invite parties
for self-reflection, isn't it becoming too time-consuming and too therapeutic for a
mediator? Wouldn't be it easier to use a transformative mediator's reflection and
summary techniques offered by Bush and Folger (see Ch. 2.2.)? Since the methods
proposed by Hermans (2001b; 1995) earlier are only idiographic procedures, aren't we in
need to develop such methods as Group Position Repertoire or Team Confrontation
Method, if we want to move beyond idiosyncratic observations and observe rather a
group dynamic? There are however much more questions than answers. Obviously, the
main question is how to adjust elements of DS theory and practice to the process of
mediation.
4.2. Towards a theory of mediation as self-narration
It is time to summarize what we learned from DS theory and practice so far and
apply this knowledge to the field of mediation by developing a new experimental model
to conflict resolution – a self-narrative model. On one hand, there is a pure psychological
concept of dialogical self or narrative self. On the other hand, there is a distinct form
of dispute resolution – mediation. The literature overview in Chapter 2 showed that over
the course of time, there various models of mediation emerged. The most recent of all
is a narrative model of mediation, which takes its roots in narrative therapy. The theory
of dialogical self or better narrative self also emerged from the field of narrative therapy
and counseling. Narrative therapy is a form of psychotherapy using narrative8. Hermans
and his colleagues assert that the self is possessed by multiple I positions, internal and
external. The notion of space is paramount in DST. The central proposition is that the
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_therapy
54
self is able to extend itself in space. The self extends its space, where it allows a
significant other to enter in its space (external I-positions). Moreover, the self is able to
observe these positions from a bird's eye view (meta-positions). The self-narrative
model of mediation however does not aim at thorough soul-searching. Mediation still
serves an aim of resolving conflicts on inter-personal level. So how to proceed? The
point is a person simply restricts him/herself to a single I position – I as somebody who
is currently experiencing conflict with the other, or I as I in conflict between me and him
or her. Then, I mentally extends its personal social space so that it is able to invite its
opponent to enter his /her imagined personal social space. Thus, the other (opponent) is
in I space. Since that person in I's personal social space, i.e. internalized, the other
becomes a full-fledged You. The other is not him or her, but you (subject). Remember,
only in I-You relationships there is an encounter. Feeling safe I is now able to try to
take the perspective of You, and becomes I as You. As has been discussed, perspectivetaking is important precondition for successful interaction. Since that person is
interiorized, I is now freely able to dissolve in the interiorized other, at least
partially. There is only I and You in my space. Now these positions might need a
third neutral I position, who is able to reconcile two conflicting positions I as I and I as
You. Authors of DST happen to call that position – meta-I (a bird's eye view). And that
position can basically act as an arbitrator. However, it is not enough only to identify
those positions in self. The self-narrative model of mediation requires also an act of self
reflection. How exactly can a mediator engage a disputing party in an act of selfreflection and meaning-making?
Another important finding from the field of narrative counseling, i.e. meaning
construction through narratives, is that stories build on our perceptions of the ongoing
events. The self is a motivated story-teller, that is, he/she tells stories from his/her life
including past, present and future. The time is an important aspect in narration.
Therefore questions should concern a temporal aspect of conflict unraveling its prehistory, current state and future implications. Using this metaphor, of a person as a
motivated story-teller, a self-narrative mediator would encourage a disputing party first
to tell a story from I as I perspective, that is, tell about conflict from his personal
viewpoint. Afterwards, the participant is invited to tell a story but from a distinct I as
55
You position. Self-narration from I as You position allows to put into practice a notion of
perspective-taking, which assumes perspective-taking in action.
Of course, the narration from the position of the others costs much efforts for
the participant. In order to make an assumption about assumptions of the other, the
conflicting parties must have been in long-standing relationships before that. By the way,
the narrative model of mediation (Winslade/Monk, 2000) evolved from the tradition of
the Narrative Family Therapy. As such, the self-narrative model of mediation is also
meant for families or for groups considered as such. This quality of the model very
much restricts its spheres of applicability. Another restriction is our limited access to
the psychological nature of others. In Jasper et al. (2012) it was argued that existing
methodologies for investigation of the dialogical self (in particular, PPR method and
self-confrontation method) are of pure intra-psychological character and that they do not
take into an account discrepancies between psychological and social. It was referred to
the research results by Cast et al. (1999) and Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979), that
proved that people usually have inaccurate perceptions about what people think and what
they actually think. On the other hand, it is commonly assumed that people tend to have
accurate assumptions about assumptions of the others about them. All in all, the
practice of perspective-taking in the form of story-telling on the behalf of the others
allows the participant to somehow take a distance from his or her point of view, no
matter how far from reality this perspective might be.
Typical for the dialogical self is a proposition that the self is in need of a third
neutral position because one needs an alternative position that would reconcile two
conflicting positions. The problem with the third position in mediation is that it might
complicate issues even more and lead to a wrong path, since the relation between
intra-psychological and social is at stake. Alone telling stories on behalf of others is
risky. The risk relates to our inaccurate perceptions about perspectives of another
person to a conflict matter. Therefore, before making an attempt to construct a third
position and moreover its narrative in the mind of a single participant, it is crucial to
check whether the narratives of parties from each other positions are accurate. Notes
about how to achieve this will be addressed and discussed in the next chapter.
56
Thus, the theory of mediation as self-narration pleads for creation of two distinct
positions in the self – I as I and I as You. Emergence of I as You position allows
perspective-taking. In order not only theoretically to acknowledge the existence of
perspective of the other to a conflict matter, but also practically, one needs to create a
story on the behalf of the other, on the basis of assumed perspective. In I as You
position the I is still I. The I as You position only suggests the act of perspectivetaking. The theory of self-narrative mediation is against of creating an alternative story
of conflict from the neutral third position in the self in order to avoid complications,
due to possible inaccuracies in understanding of each others' perspectives. The following
chapter will present in greater detail a model of stages of self-narrative mediation.
4.3. Model of self-narrative mediation
Self-narrative model of mediation (SNM) is characterized as an active creative
process and is better accustomed to at least four meetings or sessions for mediator and
three meetings or sessions for participants. From the field of mediation it is known that
there are two types of sessions held: joint and caucus. Joint sessions with all
disputing parties present, and caucus – with only one party. SNM takes advantage of
both types of sessions.
Session 1 – joint session – acquaintance and articulation of conflict
At the commencement of session, the mediator introduces him/herself. I do not
personally share the view of necessarily opening up about the essence of the method and
procedure at the beginning not because I am unsure of the method, but in order not to
overwhelm participants with too much information. I would rather say: “The current
session is joint and hereafter I proceed with each of you separately however finally we
come up all together once again for another joint meeting and now please introduce me
yourself and the problem you are facing. Who wants to begin first?” For mediator the
aim of the very first joint session is to get acquainted with conflicting parties and the
matter of conflict. For participants the session is a chance to tell their stories and speak
out conflict. Like in the sense of transformative mediation, at this opening stage
57
participants are simply invited to converse with each other. Mediator controls neither the
flow of interaction, nor the emotional appeal of participants. Mediator lets parties
express themselves the way they are willing to express. Negative emotions are not
suppressed. Thereby, participants let their anger and anxiety out, releasing place for
awareness and reflection.
Session 2 - caucuses with parties – eliciting stories
At caucus held with each party separately the participant can now be instructed of
further proceedings. The session is divided into two parts with a break between them.
First I would tell that participant is invited to once again tell his story of conflict. I will
explain that I am devoted supporter of the idea of writing ideas down since writing
clarifies thoughts and allows to review what has been said in order to avoid doubling and
to invite for corrections. In order to liberate the participant from writing and in order his
or her story to get as accurate as possible, I would ask for permission to record the
talk and to take notes, naturally, for educational purposes only. In this regard, we
might obviously need to sign some relevant documents. As has been previously
articulated, questions for eliciting stories should be open, in order to invite for extensive
articulation as well as they should take temporal aspect into account. The questions
might be the following: “How has the conflict started?” (for the past); “What is going on
now?” (for the present); “How are you going to deal with it in future?” / “What are your
ways of coping with it in future?” (for the future) (questions might need further
revision and elaboration).
As soon as the participant is ready with his story of conflict, he and mediator
take rest. At the second phase of the session after a break, the participant is now
requested to take a comfortable position and relax. He will be asked to close his eyes and
imagine his personal social space. Personal social space as I happen to call it is an
imagined place, where one gathers all people that play significant role in his or her life
(significant others). Through this process, the different others are interiorized in one's
space and become insiders. They become one's external I-positions. So they are not
treated merely as him or her (outsiders), but You, that is full-fledged I. Next, the
58
participant is asked to expand his imagined space so that there is a room for more
people. Now he is advised to look for his opponent (another conflicting party). If the
opponent is currently not in his space, then he is requested to invite him to his
imagined place. Participant is told to welcome his opponent (name) at the entrance hall
and introduce him to other significant others. Participant is asked to treat him like a
guest and be nice to him. As soon as the participant feel easy and accustomed to that
new position, he is invited to take perspective of his opponent and tell a new story
from the mouth of his opponent.
When the participant is finished, he leaves his imagined personal social space and
opens his eyes. In a separate session the second participant undergoes the same
procedure. Mediator thanks the participants for agreeing on working on this and says
that he will e-mail the participants their own stories for revision in a few days. Both
participants are asked to send the revised texts back to the mediator within a certain
period of time. However, the mediator do not send them the story from the I as You
position. He will save them for a joint review.
Session 3 – joint session – telling, retelling, construction of an alternative story,
and a written agreement
In this final joint session all the participants come up together in order to read out
their stories and exchange on them. The reading session is divided into four rounds.
First round, participants read their stories from I as I position. Second round, they read
out their stories form I as You position to each other and invite for corrections.
Third round, party A retells a revised story of party B and party B retells a revised
story of party A. Fourth round, on the basis of retold stories, participants are kindly
invited to construct an alternative story that would be mutually agreeable to all sides.
In the self-narrative model of conflict resolution the role of the mediator is
defined as engaging parties in active construction of stories or narratives and what is
more important writing these stories down, in accordance with maxim: what is not
written, does not exist. During the first session mediator takes detachment from the
process in order to let the parties speak out. In the second session he elicits stories
59
from participants on their behalf and on behalf of their opponents. In the third session he
engages parties in active exchange of stories in form of telling and retelling for a
construction of an alternative integrative story which can later on serve as a ground for a
written agreement or a declaration.
60
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]