Conflict-Free Conflict Resolution

CONFLICT-FREE CONFLICT RESOLUTION Roshan Danesh & H.B. Danesh (3 articles) HAS CONFLICT RESOLUTION GROWN UP? TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF DECISION MAKING AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION∗ H. Danesh & R. Danesh Abstract This paper provides a nascent developmental model of conflict resolution and explores how such a model challenges theorists and practitioners in the field of conflict resolution to engage with the concept of unity. The developmental model states that the ways in which human beings understand, approach, and attempt to resolve conflicts can be analogized to the developmental stages of infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Further, the model argues that conflict resolution can occur in four modes— S-Mode (Self-Centered); A-Mode (Authoritarian); P-Mode (Power Struggle); and CMode (Consultative Mode). Each of these modes corresponds to a particular nature of conflict resolution which, respectively, may be survival based, force based, power based, or unity based. The authors suggest that the C-Mode remains largely unexplored, and that conflict resolution is primarily constructed and understood today according to the dynamics of the A-Mode and P-Mode. The key to exploring the C-Mode is to analyze the concept of unity and its implications for both conflict resolution theory and practice. INTRODUCTION The community of scholars, practitioners, and students who work in the field of conflict resolution is currently the object of a strong wave of criticism. Historically, the field has always been exposed to attack from without. In recent years, however, the voices of discontent have increasingly been from within. One vehement strand of criticism has been the perceived co-optation of the movement by a particular sub-culture—lawyers (Goldberg 1997). A movement that was once driven by a substantive and communitarian desire to create layers of social justice, equality, and peace, it is argued, has now been overtaken by procedural, liberal, and efficiency concerns. At another level, are disputes over the fundamentals of processes. For example, it is striking that after decades of This article is a pre-publication of: Danesh, Hossain. & Danesh, Roshan.(2002). “Has Conflict Resolution Grown Up? Toward a New Model of Decision Making and Conflict Resolution.” International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring/Summer, pp. 59–76. ∗ thinking and practice there still exists robust disagreement about basic elements of the ‘do’s and don’ts’ of problem-solving mediation (Currie 1998). A further distinct criticism has been the limited amount of empirical research on the claims of the movement and a perceived lack of academic rigor.1 The primary effect of these criticisms has been to highlight the unique complexities of the field of conflict resolution. Clearly, it is an interdisciplinary field, but it is also more than that. We can approach it from the hard sciences or the humanities; as a philosophy or a practice; as an individual or a community; as a skill or a theory. Because conflict has not only a unique presence and is distinct in a number of fields of knowledge—such as physics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, political science—but also has common elements in all its formulations, it might be better to think of conflict resolution as a transdisciplinary field. It denies the borders that modernity has imposed on knowledge, but not simply by being between (interdisciplinary) existing borders. It also transcends those borders, drawing upon and integrating knowledge and practices from across borders, and thus in important ways calls for a redrawing of the knowledge map. The many groupings represented within the movement are responding to shared phenomena from their unique vantage points, thus offering complementary readings of the same thing. For some, cooptation equals the right result, for others the worst possible one. For some, efficiency in the dispensation of justice is a social panacea, for others an evil. It is not surprising, therefore, that there have been a diversity of responses to these criticisms. One predominant response has been fracturing and tribalization (Menkel-Meadow 1997). A more positive response has been constructive engagement with the internal critics—and in particular the criticisms that the field needs new ideas and justifications and a response to the hegemony of proceduralism—and a call for change. 2 This paper is one attempt to engage with the challenge of responding to criticism by exploring new substantive directions that could, and should, inform our practice of conflict resolution. At the heart of our argument is the belief that the fundamental challenge facing conflict resolvers and theorists is to explore how the concept of unity might inform the field of conflict resolution. This paper approaches the relevance of unity for conflict resolution by offering a simple, stylized, general, and accessible developmental model of conflict resolution. The core idea underlying a developmental model is that as human individuals go through different stages of development, they experience conflicts differently, behave differently when in a state of conflict, and attempt to resolve conflicts in different ways. Having an understanding of these developmental stages offers insight into the behaviors of disputants. It also allows us to evaluate resolution processes as appropriate or inappropriate depending on developmental stages and invites the conclusion that perhaps certain processes themselves have developmental traits and 1 These criticisms are accompanied by a number of vexing issues that continue to plague mediation and other processes. Central among these are the difficulties of cross-cultural conflict resolution, as well as the cultural specificity of processes such as mediation generally. As well, issues of ethics, standards, and power balancing remain to be addressed. 2 Transformative mediation is a good example. It attempts to define a new practice that is based on a reconceptualization of the history of the conflict resolution movement and willingness to look critically at the dominant styles and practices of mediation. It also seeks to recover and galvanize the more humane and communitarian roots of the conflict resolution movement without losing sight of the need for a clear praxis that can be efficiently used and is effectively transferable (Baruch Bush and Folger, 1994). can be classified on a developmental axis. Finally, a developmental model suggests that the goal of conflict resolution at certain stages of development can and should be the creation of a state of unity. THE UTILITY OF A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL Social entities and the body politic have often been understood by analogy to the individual human organism. The ancient Chinese “thought the world came from the huge anthropos figure called Pan Ku” (Mindell 1993, 18) and “Hindus believe we all live in the figure of Atman” (Mindell 1993, 18). Both Ancient Rome and Christianity employed developmental ideas at the social level. The history of the Roman Empire was understood into the Middle Ages as passing through stages of infancy, adolescence, maturity, and old age. The body of Christ has endured as a metaphor for the world in many Christian traditions. In Muslim societies, philosophy employed similar metaphors. Ibn Khaldun, the great 14th century thinker and father of sociology, fully developed a longstanding tradition of seeing the relative health and sickness of communities and houses in terms of the human body (Lewis 1988, 127–28). Within the Ottoman context of the 17th century, the writer Katib Celebi saw society in organic terms going through stages of growth until death (Lewis 1988, 24–25). The appeal of the developmental idea is that it resonates potently with what is intimately familiar in our experience of life—growth. No living entity is exempt from the patterns of growth. In fact, growth and life are mutually interdependent: life creates growth and growth maintains life. This interdependence of life and growth is well understood and subject to sophisticated analysis in relation to individual human biology and psychology (Durkin 1995, 301). In the contemporary study of society and social processes, it is less acceptable and less convincing to speak in developmental terms. This difference makes sense. Growth does not have the same objective facticity at the social level as it does in individual life. Human physical and psychological change is observable and in many respects inevitable. When we look for the operation of similar principles in social living entities such as the family, social institutions, and society as a whole, we are usually engaged in a more complex form of interpretation than simple observation. Applying developmental analogies to non-biological phenomena is also suspect because of the potentially dubious outcomes of such theories. In various guises they can be used to justify theories of superiority and oppression.3 They also tend to slip into an easy determinism, in which the future can be deemed inevitable. Suffice it to say such elemental determinism does not tend to withstand the tests of time. With reference to conflict resolution, however, the possibilities for utilizing a developmental model are complex and tremendous, and in this paper we set out to 3 Developmentalism has often been used as a justification for oppression or the ascribing of a pejorative connotation to particular cultures or peoples. Arguments in favor of modernization of many societies around the world have often been accompanied with the implication that pre-modern, traditional, or indigenous societies are inherently inferior, at an early stage of development, and must inevitably progress to become modern. employ a developmental model in three ways. First, and least controversial, we argue that individuals—both disputants and intervenors—interact within and attempt to resolve conflicts differently based upon the developmental stage at which they are. The relevance of this insight is that it means one of the challenges of conflict resolution processes might be to help individuals reflect upon and perhaps alter the developmental mode in which they approach a conflict. As well, such a model could provide any intervenor with new insights into disputants’ behavior and a framework for analyzing and perhaps pre-empting behaviors that might derail success. Second, we think processes themselves can be thought of and even organized according to developmental criteria. The conflict resolution movement has always voiced the conviction that it is in some way engaged in the process of changing and, perhaps, transforming people’s lives. Engagement in conflict resolution processes has commonly been seen as an opportunity to become better, happier, and healed—in other words to grow (Baruch Bush and Folger 1994; Williams 1996). This sentiment is rooted in the fact that we see the central processes of the conflict resolution movement—in particular negotiation and mediation—as an advance and improvement over the conventional ways of doing things (which usually refers to adjudication). In other words, we have tended to view the conflict resolution processes as developmentally superior, somehow beyond traditional mindsets and practices. In our approach to developmentalism, this intuition that certain processes are somehow inherently superior is not mere conjecture based upon anecdotal evidence. There is a logical conviction behind it. Processes are inherently relational—they are about social interaction and communication. The factor that most intimately affects and alters the relationships and interactions of individuals is human consciousness. How our awareness and understanding of our selves and others change as we pass through developmental stages alters our commitment and comfort with certain types of actions (i.e., processes) over others. In other words, based on our level of consciousness, we are more prone to accept or reject certain processes and the concomitant behaviors. The process itself is seen as reflecting, and indeed in many respects does reflect, the dimensions and attitudes of particular stages of growth. Third, the relational dimension of human development that hinges upon changes in human consciousness invites speculation that analogizes development to the social level. This is by no means a return to traditional attempts to explain society in a deterministic way. In fact, we accept the core idea of the constructed nature of society, but the constructed society is also one that allows for imagining changed possibilities. This core idea is our central concern. Processes of conflict resolution and the conflict resolution movement have always been aligned with particular visions of a different social order— more peaceful, more efficient, more united, more just. These various visions of society may be analogized to and mapped onto stages in the development of human consciousness. Thus, when we speak of the individual and processes as developmental, we are speaking of society as well. DEVELOPMENT, WORLDVIEWS, AND UNITY Two issues related to developmental models are especially pertinent to an understanding of conflict resolution: the idea of worldview and the way those views understand the nature of conflict and its relationship to unity. Worldview Developmental models often posit that individuals mature and act according to particular worldviews at various stages of development. A worldview refers to the predominant lens through which we construct, interpret, and interact with all aspects of our reality. Worldviews are reflexive. They are shaped by our experience of reality, and at the same time they reshape and act upon that reality. Worldviews are dynamic. They are typically the subjective comprehensions of exposure to a wide variety of external explanations and understandings of the world. These external arguments about the nature of the world come from myriad forces, including parents, culture, and religion. This means that worldviews always have a distinct component—because they are shaped by our conceptions of our own experiences. However, they are also shared in a general sense, as the external forces are often overlapping and common in varying degrees. General categories of shared worldviews can also be said to exist because human consciousness is the central factor that shapes both our worldview and the manner in which we engage and act as social beings. The human power of understanding, the main agent for the development of consciousness, involves cognitive, emotive, and experiential forms of learning and is responsive to the forces of both nature and nurture. Development of consciousness and worldview is an evolving process with certain distinct stages that can be simplistically plotted as infancy, childhood, adolescence, and maturity, but could be made more complex through adaptation of Erikson’s eight stages the application of any other scheme. Worldview thus helps us to focus on the social and interactive dimensions of human development. Development of consciousness as expressed through our worldviews alters not only our selves but also the nature of all of our relationships. As our consciousness evolves and our worldviews develop, our social behaviors including the conflicts we are involved in, our approaches to conflict resolution, and the decision to be in conflict in the first place will all be potentially altered. The relevance of worldviews for conflict resolution is seen in their impact on individual and group decision-making. In any attempt at conflict resolution, individuals alone and with others make numerous decisions. Some of these are fundamental—Do I want to engage in this process? Do I agree with this proposed outcome? —while others are somewhat less significant. However, any process of conflict resolution can be thought of as a matrix of large and small decisions being made, sometimes collectively by individuals involved and sometimes by everyone involved together. Three components of worldviews shape our decisions—perspective, principles, and purpose. All human decisions are effected, framed, and in some senses determined by these three aspects. Perspective is the world-constructing dimension of worldview. It is innate for human beings to attempt to order their experiences and observations of the world around them. This ordering is done at both the individual and communal levels, and typically manifests itself in a perception of how the world is organized (the descriptive perspective) and how it should be organized (the normative perspective). Perspectives affect decision making because we use them to set expectations for outcomes and to predict the decisions or interests of others. Simple examples illustrate the role of perspective in decision making. For example, decisions concerning our professional life will often be shaped by our constructed world. Is it a world of opportunity or deprivation? Is it a world of competition for scarce resources or sharing and altruism? Or, more basically, is the world a friendly or hostile place? Principles are the interactive component of worldview, the way in which the worldview is translated into concrete behaviors in life. In one sense, principles have historically been analyzed through discussions of morality and ethics, and refer to the values that guide our actions. Typically, as Carrie Menkel-Meadow notes in the context of conflict resolution, such principles are given but may also be chosen through conversion or other means (2001, 1073–75). This often compulsory nature of principles highlights the fact that individuals often see within their actions a moral imperative—a sense of rightness and correctness. We choose to act in certain ways because we see those actions as reflecting our particular and partial notion of the truth. Principles are thus sources of justification. They justify the particular decisions we make and the actions we undertake in the world—undergirding them with a degree of personal conviction. Purpose is the interpretive component of worldview. Whereas our perspective is our understanding of how the world is ordered and our principles inform and shape our practices within that world, our purpose is what provides ultimate meaning to life, and, as such, dictates the ends we seek. Purpose acts like a funnel for all our decisions and actions, guiding them toward particular outcomes. There exists both a microcosmic and macrocosmic dimension to purpose. The microcosmic dimension is seen in how purpose shapes the particular results we seek in day-to-day activities, conflicts, and interactions. In the language of conflict resolution, it refers to both our positions and interests. The macrocosmic dimension lies in how purpose determines the plausible range of positions and interests we might contemplate pursuing in the first place. For example, consider a custody dispute between a divorcing couple. There are many potential outcomes that might be pursued. The contemplation of these outcomes is directed—interpreted—by the microcosmic dimension of purpose. The fact remains, however, that in any typical dispute certain rational outcomes are deemed wholly implausible, or more likely, never even contemplated. This narrowing of the range of possibilities is accomplished by the macrocosmic dimensions of purpose.4 Breaking down worldviews into perspective, principles, and purpose is made clearer by looking at some of the worldviews, which, according to contemporary developmental psychology, are thought to be predominant. For example, one worldview is commonly labeled the ‘mechanistic’ worldview and is thought to have roots in Newtonian physics as well as empiricist philosophy (Crombie 1995, 149–50). The perspective of this view is 4 Whenever we refer to purpose later in this paper, we are referring first and foremost to the broader, more general macrocosmic dimension and its funneling effect on our decisions. that the “world is like a machine composed of parts that that operate in time in space” (Miller 2002, 14–15). The principles that operate in this mechanistic worldview are passivity and determinism, as in a machine each part waits for the moment to be acted upon so that it can play its role. The purpose in this worldview is to remain within accepted bounds, to keep the machine running, and to fulfil one’s narrow, predestined part. THE UNITY PARADIGM AND THE NATURE OF CONFLICT The concept of worldview is also an invitation to imagine new possibilities. Not surprisingly, and with some justification, contemporary processes of conflict resolution are largely premised on the observation that conflict is a pervasive aspect of human life at all levels and in all contexts. Conflict theory preaches the inevitability of inter-group competition. As Galtung and Jacobsen comment, “Conflict, incompatible goals, are as human as life itself; the only conflict-free humans are dead humans” and that “war and violence are like slavery, colonialism, and patriarchy; however, they come and they go” (2000, vii). This sentiment is typically accompanied by the view that conflict is desirable. “Conflict is the spice that seasons our most intimate relationships” and “it is woven into the fundamental fabric of nature” (Muldoon 1996, 9). Conflict has numerous positive life-affirming affects—it can strengthen group identity, bring issues and problems to the surface, and encourage positive action. These beliefs about conflict typically show fidelity to the idea that there are basic human needs that require satisfaction, and attempts at needs satisfaction often gives rise to conflict. They also sometimes imply Freud’s assertions that the only hope for a reduction of war is in the displacement of instinctual aims and impulses (Einstein and Freud 1991). There is a symmetry between inner and outer conflict in this scheme. Internal dissonance is said to give rise to behaviors likely to result in social conflict. Alleviating social conflicts is thus also an attempt to re-establish inner peace and harmony. Assumptions and observations about the pervasiveness and positive nature of conflict do not, as a matter of logic, establish the inevitability of conflict. Nor do they necessarily negate the possibility of creating environments where the incidence of conflict is minimal. In a developmental perspective, conflict is a matter of lesser and greater degree. When operating according to certain worldviews, individuals and social groups will be more prone to conflict. In some circumstances conflict can be said to be inevitable. However, when operating according to other worldviews, it is at least possible that we can think of conflict as in some ways not inevitable. Attempting to look at the phenomena of conflict in such a reverse manner, by imagining a zone that is ‘conflict-free’, may thus be a helpful exercise in exploring new approaches and understandings to conflict resolution. Imagine for a moment a social condition free of conflict. What would we call it? Our choice of term would be largely dictated by our orientation to the nature of conflict itself. As we have already seen, conflict-free is equated for some with a state of death or nothingness. The problem with such a view is that it imposes a hegemonic view of conflict—that conflict is a fundamental life-sustaining reality which has distinct properties of existence unique unto itself. Why do we often assume that the absence of conflict is a void, an end? If this were so, then a term such as ‘conflict resolution’ would be inappropriate on multiple levels, for if a conflict-free situation is one of death, then resolution is not a desirable goal. As well, resolution is much closer to being an impossibility, for in this life-sustaining view of conflict are we not likely to seek out conflicts in order to maintain existence? One counter-orientation, which we advocate both as a matter of theory and practice, is to begin thinking about conflict as the absence of a condition of unity. A conflict-free situation is, as such, not a void, but a substantive condition constructed around an alternate life-sustaining force. Unity is a difficult term for many people, and it has not been well studied. In popular usage it tends to carry connotations of uniformity, coercion, and imposition. In various philosophical traditions the term does appear, but often carrying narrower or more specific connotations than as a fundamental life-force. Various religious traditions have spoken of both transcendent unity (for example with God) and social unity, but often have maintained severe forms of exclusion. For example, the Prophet Muhammad confronted the entrenched tribalism of 7th century Arabia by placing the umma (“community” or “people”) at the center of his religious system, a concept with the potential to transcend narrower loyalties to tribe and to even larger social units such as nation. Membership in the umma, however, is restricted to believers and thus remains only a limited unity.5 In the last decade, processes of globalization have advanced our awareness of evolving forms of unity—be they economic, military, political, or informational—yet, the term and concept of unity remains largely underused. There are two aspects to our use of the term ‘unity’ for the purposes of this paper. First, inner psychological unity and outer social unity must be intended. Unity cannot be achieved without a conscious and purposeful ambition to unite. The central reason for this requisite is the intimate relationship between unity and power. It is extremely easy to confuse situations of oppression and distortion with a condition of unity. ‘Forced unity’ is in fact one of the most common patterns in human relationships and societies—a condition where a sense of cohesion is maintained through an external threat and force. A striking example is observed in our work in the Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have used conflict-free conflict resolution (CFCR) as a peace-education model for high school children from all ethnic groups. A common plea we heard was that the best alternative to current tensions would be a return to the Cold War political arrangement of being a Soviet satellite state. “During that period,” we were told, “we were united. The ethnic groups had no problem with one another. We never fought.” Our response usually began with a question: “When the Cold War government fell, why was there a return to pre5 This is not intended to be a critique of the concept of umma, which is a powerful unifying idea within Muslim traditions. Most religious systems have tended to employ limited conceptions of unity in various guises. Within some Christian traditions, the notion of communion and the collective approach to God within a Church is a similarly powerful, yet socially limited, concept of unity. Some more recent religions as well as movements within older religions have attempted to give unity a more universal and central definition. The Bahá’í Faith is a good example of a new religion rooted in a concept of the “oneness of humanity”(Martin and Hatcher 1984). Unitarian Universalism and the ecumenical movement are good examples from within Christianity. Communist ethnic patterns and fighting? What type of unity was present?” Forced unity is only the illusion of unity. In reality, it is a condition patterned on force and fear in which only superficial unity is created, while within individual minds and social patterns, preexisting conflicts remain. Second, unity is a state of convergence of different and unique entities. A meaningful distinction between unity and uniformity is only made by recognizing that unity implies differentiated entities coming into contact with one another to form another, usually more complex, distinct entity. In human relationships this element of difference is always present. We each bring into our relationships wide varieties of experience and culture. There are different psychological and social patterns this meeting of difference can display. One of the individuals involved can occupy a position of dominance, and that individual’s worldview and way of life will come to dominate the relationship, and in some instances, the life of the other individuals involved. This pattern often has the semblance of unity, as it appears that the individuals involved are in a state of harmony and healthy integration. In reality though no unity has been created, but rather a state of uniformity imposed. A second common pattern is that the individuals involved in the relationship largely maintain the autonomy and sovereignty of their preexisting worldviews and way of life, and treat others as equal in the relationship. This pattern again has the semblance of unity, but is actually only one of symmetry. No convergence or integration has taken place; people lead parallel lives. A third pattern, often associated with the term ‘unity’ exists when the two individuals create a third, new entity, that as much as possible represents the equal contributions of the individuals and reflects a harmony between their worldviews and ways of life. Combining these elements, our definition states unity is a conscious and purposeful condition of convergence of two or more unique entities in a state of harmony, integration, and cooperation to create a new evolving entity or entities, usually, of a same or a higher nature. However, any definition of unity is incomplete without observing how unity relates to our general life processes. The stress on unity in the first instance as a chosen, conscious, and internal condition suggests unity is a creative process that is life engendering. Creating unity is a process of creating new entities and life patterns. Focusing our minds on unity, therefore, may effectively forestall the appearance or intensification of conditions of severe conflict or disunity. By fostering creativity and life, unity prevents or at least lessens the appearance of conflict. The argument stemming from this idea is that the abundance of conflict in human life may be due to the absence of unity and not due to an inherent proclivity of human beings for conflict and violence. Accordingly, the possibility opens to define conflict as the absence of unity, and disunity as the source and cause of conflict. For conflict resolution, the implications of this understanding of unity are potentially far reaching. First, it is helpful simply as a mental map. Approaching a situation of conflict from a worldview that preaches the inevitability of conflict potentially results in different behaviors than if we approach from an understanding of the possibility of unity. How we understand the dimensions of time involved in the resolution of conflict, the ways in which we use space, the intended outcomes, and the role an intervenor might play could all radically change. Arguably, current disensus over mediator styles reflects a similar intuition. In a variety of critiques of problem-solving mediation, the sense is that mediation sells short the possibilities of intervention, giving too much power to the conflict and not enough power to the reality of enduring peaceful human relationships. A focus on unity similarly inverses an intervenor’s focus: Unity is possible, is real, and a narrowing of a conflict to a dispute should actually be countered with a broadening of one’s understanding of conflict as an opportunity to create, or perhaps re-create, a strong and substantive condition of unity. Second, the idea of unity invites a critique of contemporary processes and principles of conflict resolution. Simply stated, processes such as mediation and negotiation assume too much about the pervasiveness and inevitability of conflict and too little about the capacity of human beings to craft new relationships and community models. Most models of mediation, for example, are not even remotely concerned with the possibilities of creating unity. In their very core structures they reflect a perception of division. They speak of disputants and parties, often involve problematic techniques of separation such as caucusing, and in some models engage in an intense narrowing of the issues so as to avoid the psychological and human dimensions and instead focus on the technical and manageable. Thinking about unity thus invites critiques of entire process models themselves. While this may be a difficult challenge, it could be beneficial to engage in such a structured re-examination of fundamentals. Third, the association between worldview, unity, and conflict—that some worldviews may be more conducive to conflict and others to unity, and that these may be said to exist on a developmental axis—highlights the intersection of process and education. Meaningful and effective conflict resolution in this view requires developing an understanding of participants’ worldviews, and education about worldviews that might result in the most successful resolution of the conflict or the creation of the highest state of unity. As well, this view highlights that the traditional understanding of the source of conflict in conflict resolution literature—which usually sees conflict as a result of competition over goals—may be deficient and that what is underlying may often be a conflict between worldviews. In this understanding effective resolution must involve helping individuals reflect upon and become more conscious of their worldviews and the role they play in life, and challenging individuals to confront their worldviews so as to resolve the conflict before them and perhaps proactively forestall future conflicts. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER A NASCENT DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION The premises underlying our developmental model of conflict resolution should now be clear. People approach conflict and conflict resolution differently depending upon their stage of development. Specifically, their worldview—made up of their perspectives, principles, and purposes—will shape the conflicts people experience, how they behave in such situations, and how they attempt resolution. Processes themselves will also tend to reflect particular worldviews more than others. Developmentalism also opens the door to the possibility that some worldviews may be more conducive to conflict and others to unity. The challenge within this approach is to understand which processes and behaviors are likely to engender unity. Against this backdrop we have developed and utilized a nascent developmental model of conflict resolution. The model is designed more with an eye to practice than to theory, and as such it may at first appear linear, straightforward, and rigid. However, we caution against such conclusions. What is described below is an umbrella model, which is stated in general terms because it encompasses a set of core ideas that have been altered and applied to a range of more specific activities related to the practice of conflict resolution. We have developed more specific applications of the umbrella model in several areas, including institutional conflict resolution and systems design, creating environments that are ‘conflict-free’, peace education models and curricula, and qualities and behaviors of effective leadership and management. The umbrella model we describe below is a broad framework from which more specific applications can be derived. Step one is to describe the worldviews that correspond to major stages in human development. Table 1 identifies four major stages in human development—infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood—and their corresponding worldviews. Decision Making Level 1 Level 2 Stage of Development Perspective Infancy World is… Me Childhood Level 3 Adolescence Level 4 Adulthood World is… Dangerous World is… Jungle World is…One Principles Purpose Self-interest Instinctual SelfPreservation Conscious Might is Right/Domination Self-/Group Preservation Survival of the Fittest/ Competition Truth and Justice To “Win” Unity in Diversity Table 1. The Developmental Stages of Decision Making Within these levels one finds many common themes from literature on human development. The worldview of infancy is distinguished from the later worldviews by the fact that the human being in infancy is unable to differentiate between the self and others, a trait that is generally accepted as typical of the human infant. Similarly, the plotting of a heightened tendency toward competition and conflict at the stage of adolescence is a typical description of that phase of human life. As well, the expansion of purpose to be all-encompassing reflects cognitive developments in our ways of understanding and relating to the world. The basic directions in which perspective, principles, and purpose develop are obvious. The development of perspective is from an undifferentiated and self-consumed understanding of the world to an all-encompassing and inclusive one. This erosion of dichotomous perceptions fuels the potential to recognize the indivisibility of one’s choices and actions from the surrounding world. Similarly, the development of principles is toward increasingly other-centered or altruistic behavior (broken down into the ideas of truth and justice in Table 1) and a lessening of the tendency toward either authoritarianism (childhood) or competition (adolescence). Finally, the development of macrocosmic purpose is in the direction of expansion outwards from the self, to the point where unity itself becomes a desired outcome. The initial relevance for conflict resolution is that whenever individuals sit down to resolve a conflict, they bring to the table a predominant worldview that will generally correspond to one of the four developmental levels. Just as people bring to the resolution table their positions and interests, they also bring with them the perspective, principles, and purpose that are informing and shaping those positions and interests, as well as their behavior. The developmental model thus provides a useful tool for analyzing and responding to disputant behavior. Anecdotes from a training and from an intervention help illustrate this. When training people in CFCR, after presenting the four worldviews, we often ask them at what level of decision-making they think they are. Typically, the answers given are judgmental and self-delusional, such as the oft-repeated comment, “I know a lot of people who operate at the child and adolescent levels, but I’m glad to be at Level 4.” One interesting exchange occurred during a graduate seminar in conflict resolution.6 After being presented with the four levels of decision making, John, one of the group members, suggested the group operated according to Level IV, but that he had worked with many who were “at Level 3.” At one point another class member, Jane, raised the issue of a particularly difficult set of political negotiations in which she had been involved outside of the class. John made the following comment in reply—“I assume everyone involved in the discussions was operating in a pure Level 3 mode.” Within this exchange we can observe the drawbacks and utility of a developmental model of conflict resolution. Developmental analogies are often accompanied by misplaced implications of “better” or “superior.” In reality, by referring to developmental stages one should see connotations of cause and effect. Earlier stages cannot and should not be avoided or skipped. They are the building blocks of later ones, fundamental for their attainment. However, it may be psychologically unhealthy to be in a particular stage of development for too long or at a particular period of life. It is not always appropriate to be primarily driven by the worldview of a child, but that is not because of an innate problem with the worldview itself. Only in the context of time and 6 The recounted events occurred in the graduate seminar “Conflict-free Conflict Resolution” taught by the authors at Landegg International University in June 2000. The names of the participants have been changed. space may worldviews be deemed appropriate or inappropriate, healthy or unhealthy. In their essence they are always needed and fundamental to human life and growth. This danger aside, the anecdote reveals an important human impulse that lies at the root of all conflict resolution. Human beings want to be successful and be seen as successful; they want to do their best and be associated in other people’s minds as the best. Humans innately strive to be better, to improve, and to be affirmed in their improvement. John was both trying to associate himself with Level 4 and operating on the assumption that other individuals wanted to be at Level 4. Humans exposed to a developmental model, if it seems to resonate with their experience of being human, are driven to try to fulfil it. Our experience has been that the mere activity of trying to organize conflict resolution methods and processes developmentally for disputants has the effect of propelling them to try to utilize processes that are more likely to result in peaceful, long-standing resolution—whether it is mediation over the courts, the courts over violence, or an attempt to create unity as opposed to just reaching an amicable outcome. The second anecdote is the unfortunately familiar situation of an intervention between a divorcing couple in order to achieve a financial settlement. Throughout the attempted intervention Frank, the husband, exhibited the following behaviors: initially refused to take part; later agreed to take part but tried to set conditions and terms on his participation; tried to commandeer the process from the outset by demanding to make the first opening statement; either failed to listen when others were speaking or attempted to interrupt and challenge noisily; and tried to belittle the mediator on a number of occasions. Based on the developmental model, Frank was exhibiting behaviors typical of a predominant childhood worldview. His tendency toward control and authoritarianism resonated with the insecurities and fear typical of that stage of development. The tools a mediator typically has at his or her disposal to deal with this situation—caucusing, timeouts, more evaluative tools—while often helpful, nonetheless avoid addressing the real motivations that are prompting Frank’s behavior and making the process difficult. If a resolution is reached under such conditions there are nagging dilemmas that remain— have we just reinforced Frank’s aggressive authoritarian tendencies? Were the outcomes skewed to meet the demands of Frank’s behavior? Won’t Frank, given his worldview, be engaged in new, and perhaps related, conflicts that require intervention very soon? By contrast, the developmental model potentially offers a whole other set of techniques and approaches to this situation. At the very least a structured scheme to diagnose Frank’s behavior is provided. This model opens the door to techniques including worldview education and challenging participants to engage in Level 4 conflict resolution that can be used in a way that may be proactive and lead to long-term resolutions and results. However, our argument goes even further. Step two in the developmental model of conflict resolution involves recognizing that a particular worldview will tend to try to resolve conflict in particular way (the nature of conflict resolution) employing a particular modality (the mode of conflict resolution). Moreover, it is even possible to speculate how particular contemporary processes might reflect a particular level as opposed to others. The nature of conflict resolution is that it can be survival based, force based, power based, or unity based. We have labeled the modes of conflict resolution as the Self-Centered Mode (S-Mode), the Authoritarian Mode (A-Mode); the Power Struggle Mode (P-Mode); and the Consulative Mode (C-Mode). Table 2 summarizes the nature and modes of conflict resolution. Decision Making Stage of Development Nature of Conflict Resolution Mode of Conflict Resolution Level 1 Infancy Survival Based Self-Centered (S-Mode) Level 2 Childhood Force Based Authoritarian (A-Mode) Level 3 Adolescence Level 4 Adulthood Power Based Unity Based Power Struggle (P-Mode) Consultative (C-Mode) Table 2. The Developmental Modes of Conflict Resolution When an individual or group attempts to resolve a conflict in the S-Mode, their sole objective is to fulfil self-centered needs apart from any awareness or concern for the needs, interests, and issues that the other parties to the conflict face. These self-centered needs have their roots in the extreme vulnerability and dependency of those involved. The S-Mode is not just that a person or a group is “looking out for their own interests” or “taking care of number one first,” but that they are actually oblivious to the harmful effects on other people of their pursuit of self-interest. Usually, we do not find many examples of pure S-Mode behavior. Self-interest is always present in the A-Mode and PMode, but in those modes it is a more conscious state than in this mode. The A-Mode of conflict resolution is associated most intimately with physical and psychological forces as tools for resolving conflicts. Underlying the worldview of childhood is a profound sense of insecurity, and by consequence A-Mode conflict resolution often has the disjointed appearance of mediating between moments of force and moments of strained calm. The moments of calm, just like the moments of force, serve to reinforce the power position of the authority figure by alleviating his or her insecurity. The association of the A-Mode with force, which often translates into violence, arguably means there are significant remnants of the A-Mode in contemporary peaceful processes. For example, one central critique of adversarial adjudicative processes that contributed to the rise in popularity of mediation was that mediation allowed for a shift in decision-making authority away from legal actors to the disputants themselves. The movement away from imposed resolutions to chosen ones perhaps represents a struggle with the A-Mode and force-based conflict resolution within an otherwise nonviolent process. The P-Mode corresponds to the adolescent worldview that is characterized by an internal struggle of identity formation and an external competition for autonomy and independence. Such a worldview invites competition and a power struggle with those around them, but rarely descends into physical confrontation. Conflict resolution processes that stress winning and positioning seem to fit comfortably with this worldview, as would many aspects of traditional adversarial legal cultures. At a prominent conflict resolution conference in the United States, we presented the developmental model of conflict resolution to a group of experienced mediators and negotiators.7 With almost no dissent they agreed on two things. First, and unsurprisingly, they unanimously agreed that when they are engaged in mediation and negotiation the majority of the parties—whether there are lawyers present or not—behave in the P-Mode. Those who did not behave in the P-Mode were often described as being in the A-Mode. Second, and very surprising, is that they all agreed that mediation and negotiation were both processes that are designed in accordance with a P-Mode mentality. Without exception mediation and negotiation were termed adolescent processes of conflict resolution. When we challenged them on this classification, they stated that while there are elements within certain forms of negotiation and mediation that perhaps transcend the adolescent mindset (transformative mediation was often mentioned), the processes themselves are adolescent. Many issues were mentioned as evidence for this opinion. Mediation’s focus on party autonomy and mediator neutrality—while important improvements over some of the authoritarian tendency of adjudication—nonetheless embody ideals of open competition and the importance of winning. Also, many expressed dissatisfaction with mediation’s inability to be structured in a manner that is other than the divisive party/party mentality that suffuses almost all conflict resolution processes. This issue speaks to a general concern over whether we have to view conflict resolution in an “us versus them” and “either-or” mentality. In other words, when there is a conflict, inevitably it is required that we analyze the conflict as a point of contention between competing parties with different interests who need to resolve the specific issue before them. Even further, popular rhetoric such as “win/win” outcomes were interpreted by the group of conflict resolution practitioners as embodying the adolescent attitude that the purpose of conflict resolution is to fulfil one’s desired end(s) as fully as possible, and ideally with the least amount of difficulty or resistance. The C-Mode of conflict resolution is, we find, is largely unexplored and where the future of the field of conflict resolution lies. It resonates with the times and age we live in that our focus move toward building sustained relationships and seeking proactive resolutions as opposed to less ambitious and more temporary outcomes. The idea of a consultative modality is one in which participants are all challenged and consciously agree to attempt to approach resolving their conflict in the worldview of maturity. In practical terms this means a complete revisioning of the practice of conflict resolution, including moving beyond a rhetoric of division (parties and disputants), focusing on the educative dimensions of process, and encouraging a fidelity to a higher state of unity as part of the outcome. TOWARD THE C-MODE: CFCR AND NEW PROCESSES This preliminary attempt to articulate a developmental model of conflict resolution provides a good starting point for further research. Our continuing work focuses on a number of challenging issues raised by the developmental model, including further theorizing about the nature of unity; expounding on the application of developmentalism to social processes such as conflict resolution; and exploring the relationship between unity and peace. The greatest benefit of the developmental model thus far has been the challenges it has laid before us for the practice of conflict resolution. It has opened the door to a new critical approach to contemporary processes—by trying to look at them through a developmental lens—and experimentation with new processes or the reform of contemporary processes that might reflect more the possibilities of unity and the C-Mode. This experimentation has resulted in the development of a new process, CFCR, as well as some alterations to our own practices of mediation. CFCR has been put into practice extensively in the former Yugoslavia, been used to train managers in several corporations, as a basis for experimentation with proactive and preventative marriage and family conflict resolution, and has been introduced to judges, lawyers, psychologists, schoolchildren, and graduate students of conflict resolution with highly positive responses. Future articles and research will describe the evolution and practice of CFCR and evaluate its potential for widespread use. The challenges this moment in history pose for peacemakers and conflict resolvers are great. However, if the history of the conflict resolution movement is a valid predictor, the potential for widespread innovation and for rising to the challenges of new conflicts is immense. References Baruch Bush, Robert A., and Joseph P. Folger. 1994. The Promise of Mediation. Responding to Conflict through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bonta, Bruce.D. 1996. “Conflict Resolution Among Peaceful Societies: The Culture of Peacefulness.” Journal of Peace Research 3(4): 403–20. Crombie, A.C. 1995. The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo. New York: Dover. Currie, Cris M. 1998. “Opinion Wanted: A Theoretical Construct for Mediation Practice.” Dispute Resolution Journal 53:70–75. Danesh, H. B. 1986. Unity: The Creative Foundation of Peace. Ottawa: Bahá’í Studies Publications. ———. 1995. The Violence-Free Family: Building Block of a Peaceful Civilization. Ottawa: Bahá’í Studies Publications. Durkin, Kevin. 1995. Developmental Psychology: Infancy to Old Age. Oxford: Blackwell. Einstein, Albert, and Sigmund Freud. 1991. Why War? Redding: CAT Publishing. Galtung, Johan, and Carl. G. Jacobsen. 2000. Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND. London: Pluto Press. Goldberg, Steven. H. 1997. “ ‘Wait a Minute. This is Where I Came In.’” A Trial Lawyer’s Search for Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Brigham Young University Law Review 1997: 653–85. Lewis, Bernard. 1988. The Political Language of Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Martin, Douglas and William S. Hatcher. 1984. The Bahá’í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. New York: Harper & Row. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1997. “When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals.” University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 44:1871—1933. ———. 2001. “And Now a Word About Secular Humanism, Spirituality, and the Practice of Justice and Conflict Resolution.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 28:1073—87. Miller, Patricia. H. 2002. Theories of Developmental Psychology. New York: Worth. Mindell, A. 1993. The Leader as Martial Artist. New York: HarperCollins. Muldoon, Brian. 1996. The Heart of Conflict. New York: Perigree. Schellenberg, J.A. 1996. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press. Williams, Gerald. R. 1996. “Negotiation as Healing.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 1:1–66. A Consultative Conflict-Resolution Model Beyond Alternative Dispute-Resolution ∗ H. Danesh & R Danesh Abstract In this article, the authors use the consultative intervention model to offer a critique of institutionalized mediation. The three defining features of the consultative intervention model are that it is proactive, unity-centered and educative. Conventional mediation is shown to be insufficiently concerned with these three features and structured in a manner that is antithetical to some aspects of the consultative worldview. If concerns about worldview and unity are to be integrated into our conflict resolution practice and lexicon, the willingness to experiment extensively with new processes and to abandon negative aspects of existing modes is required. INTRODUCTION Conflict resolution processes are multilayered. On the surface these processes are comprised of a set of skills and steps that combine to form a particular design toward a particular end. When we speak of mediation, for example, we typically talk in terms of the skills of intervening, listening and being neutral, and of steps including opening statements, brainstorming and caucusing. Below this surface level there exists a realm of mental constructs and perceptions that shape the choice of skills and steps, as well as their integration and application. The attitude toward the structure of reality, the purpose of life and existence, and the appropriate forms of action frame and helps to shape the process. Even deeper under the surface is the realm of context; conflict resolution processes are born within and arise out of specific historical, cultural and social contexts. Often, in fact, they are the product of multiple contexts and traditions. This multidimensional reality of mediation is often implied but is not explicitly emphasized. We tend to remain particularly focused on the surface layer (skills and steps) often at the expense of developing a deeper understanding of the larger implications and significance of our actions and participation. This approach makes sense given the emphasis on praxis that has dominated much of the contemporary study of conflict resolution. In a world with a burgeoning “cult of efficiency”, there is little time, space or This article is a pre-publication of: Danesh, H.B. & Danesh, Roshan, (2002). A Consultative Conflict-Resolution Model: Beyond Alternative Dispute Resolution. International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, Autumn/Winter 2002, pp. 17-33. ∗ tolerance for looking deeply below the surface, especially when the surface seems to work, is popular and has a growing and deserved positive reputation (Stein, 2001). Nevertheless, there are costs for focusing primarily on the surface level. First, it obfuscates the political dimensions of advocating and participating in particular conflict resolution processes by making them appear as neutral. Conceived of as a set of skills and steps, mediation does not appear to connote any particular set of social meanings and participation in it does not necessarily imply advocacy or consent to a particular political position. However, mediation carries with it a unique worldview that is the product of particular contextual realities, and as such participation within it positions one as an unconscious advocate of a perhaps undesirable political stance.1 Second, focusing on the surface level makes processes appear as static and ahistorical, or more precisely, beyond history. The reality of mediation in the contemporary world is that it is the product of both a general and specific dynamic process of historical, cultural and social evolution. The general process is one of a gradual, growing rejection of violence and authoritarianism as appropriate approaches to resolving human conflict, and a movement toward themes of consensus and peace. The specific process is that of a change within the political and legal cultures of many parts of the world in the second half of the twentieth century and a concomitant expansion in our understanding of psychological and social dynamics of conflict and violence. In another article (Danesh and Danesh, 2002), we discuss the consultative intervention model which reflects three main postulates which we consider important for conflict resolution: (1) that conflict resolution practices reflect particular worldviews; (2) that worldviews exist in a gradual, evolutionary process; and (3) that some worldviews are more prone to conflict and violence, while others to unity and peace. This has led us to design and practice a new method of conflict resolution, which is a conscious attempt at the construction of a consultative process.1 This article explores the implications of the consultative intervention model for conflict resolution practice. Critiques of institutionalized mediation are interspersed but not exhaustive; the three defining features of the consultative intervention model — that is, proactive, unity-centered and educative — are largely missing from the predominant mediation model. PROACTIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION We have to resolve conflicts every day of our lives. Typically, these conflicts are resolved informally, without the intervention of any third party or process, and in such instances we do indeed often see the proactive effects of our earlier conflict resolution experiences: we are more patient and understanding; show greater foresight and knowledge; and are more attuned to how to defuse situations satisfactorily before they become heated. This informal, autonomous and diffuse way human beings learn about how to resolve their conflicts is crucially important for any family, workplace or community. In most forums it allows for a basic culture of civility and unity to exist, by contributing to the development of socially shared meanings and norms about how conflict will be dealt with. 2 When conflict moves beyond this microcosmic level and requires outside intervention, the issue of whether the conflict resolution experience has a proactive effect is more complex. The first issue is to identify what a proactive effect would look like. There are three main possibilities. First, a disputant could leave a conflict resolution process better insulated against the harms related to being involved in conflict. Disputants could have a better understanding of how to deal with the psychological and physical toll that conflict can have on individuals, their relationships and their lives. Second, a disputant could leave a process better prepared to avoid recurrence of conflict. In other words, disputants may learn how to downsize and manage their conflicts effectively so that disputes can be effectively dealt with prior to requiring outside intervention. There are a range of skills disputants may learn from being involved in the process that can help them outside of it, including how to manage the emotional dimensions of the conflict, how to identify their true objectives, and how to listen and communicate more effectively. Third, a disputant may learn how to approach situations in a way that significantly lessens the appearance of conflict in the first place. This learning might be rooted in skills development, but it also rests upon a shift in how individuals understand and conceive of the dynamics of their relationships with others. It remains empirically uncertain and nebulous to what degree participation in contemporary processes of conflict resolution, most notably mediation, has these proactive effects. It is a difficult issue to study empirically, and the field of conflict resolution is still young in its use of a variety of research methods and techniques. It is a fair observation, however, that institutionalized mediation is not structurally designed to have these proactive effects. For a conflict resolution process to be a proactive agent in the terms described above, it requires that the potential extra-dispute positive outcomes be consciously engaged with and addressed within the mediation process itself. Conventional mediation has often been criticized for failing to do so. It tends toward narrowing the conflict to a set of practical and often material specifics that are discrete and manageable. Other values of participation, such as the potentially positive proactive effects, are often subordinated to the overriding objective of a particular, neat and efficient outcome to the specific dispute. There is nothing innately wrong with this valuing. When people go to mediation to resolve conflict, their prime objective is to settle the issues before them and move on with life. Institutionalized mediation attempts such resolution. Nonetheless, there are limitations associated with this narrow focus. First, to the degree there is an assumption that within a process only we can have one or the other—either quick, efficient resolution of a narrowly construed dispute or a conscious engagement with potentially proactive outcomes—this is a falsity. In other words, such an attitude sells mediation and conflict resolution processes, short. The hard work of engendering within individuals the needed awareness and consciousness of the relationship between their particular conflict and how mediation contributes to its resolution, and the role and place of conflict in their lives is an issue that can be addressed structurally and stylistically without eroding the possibilities for quick and efficient outcomes. Transformative mediation can be recast in these terms: a response to the inappropriately drawn line between the inner life of disputants and the external goal of resolving a social conflict. Transformative mediation removes this line by inviting inner reflection into the process, in particular reflection on the nature and meaning of relationships. This refocusing is accomplished not through collapsing mediation into psychoanalysis, but by changes to the objectives and approach of mediation and concomitant shifts in the style of the mediator that have the effect of orienting the disputants to additional outcomes other than primarily distributive ones. Second is the issue of the meaning of “resolution” of a conflict. The narrow construction of “resolution” in conventional mediation ignores the primary lesson of our model that suggests both the intensity of the appearance of conflict and the ways in which conflict resolution are pursued are tied to one’s worldview. Certain worldviews are more prone to conflict, while others are not, meaning that the potential for a process to be a proactive agent depends upon the worldview according to which it operates and how it interacts with the worldviews of the disputants. Proactive conflict resolution requires somehow making participants aware of this connection between their worldview, the conflict they are in, and how that conflict is resolved. Only when this awareness occurs is the potential for long-term positive effects fully maximized. It is important to note as well the relationship between worldview, resolution, culture and context. Bonta comments that in “small-scale” societies the tendency toward peaceful conflict resolution “is based, primarily, on their world-views of peacefulness—a complete rejection of violence” whereas “the Western world-view boils down to an acceptance of the inevitability of conflict and violence” (1996: 404). The implication is that in cross-cultural contexts engagement at the level of worldview is required in order to give meaning to the idea of resolution. At the same time, historically predominant patterns of cultural bias and difference often result in the subordination of resolution to existing power structures and differentials. As “we have no patterns for relating across our human differences as equals” (Lorde, 1984: 115), the result is that “familiar cultural images and longestablished legal norms construct the subjectivity and speech of socially subordinated persons as inherently inferior to the speech and personhood of dominant groups…These conditions…undermine the capacity of many persons in our society to use the procedural rituals that are formally available to them” (White, qtd. in Fox, 1996: 105). The possibilities of meaningful change-oriented discourse is thus lessened and devalued by the relationship of worldview, power and culture. Institutionalized mediation, by not promoting this conscious interaction at the level of worldview, can therefore have the unintended consequence of normalizing particular attitudes toward the meaning and nature of conflict. In some subtle respects it could be said that conventional mediation actually encourages more social conflict, increasing resort to third-party intervention, as opposed to developing the life skills and worldview needed for autonomous construction of more peaceful lives. A central feature of institutionalized mediation that encourages these effects is its narrowing of the conflict to make it manageable—a process that also has the effect of decontextualizing the conflict. Baruch-Bush and Folger write that “bargaining mediators address interests that are mostly viewed as problems; they narrow concerns, keep tight control over interaction, and move steadily toward solutions that are mutually acceptable” and link this “bottomline thinking” to the negation of the role that deeper emotions and a complex history play in shaping a conflict (1994: 61). This minimalist account of conflict does not send a message to disputants that conflict is an unavoidable social reality, part of the fabric of social relationships and something to be responded to by a focus on a distributive outcome, while reinforcing a sense that the conflict is not deeply rooted in individual concepts of the world, of others and of notions of acceptable behavior, ideas and attitudes. A potential effect of this sense over the longterm is that an ethical distance arises between individual self-awareness, growth and transformation on the one hand, and social situations and relationships that result in conflict on the other. In so doing, the line between individual choices and internal processes, and the conflicts involving them may get increasingly obfuscated. In this reality, conflict becomes easier to enter into and third-party intervention will be called upon more frequently. The minimalist meaning of conflict gets translated into a set of social norms that discourage self-management of conflicts and encourage third-party intervention. Contrary to popular conflict resolution discourse, in this reading of conventional mediation, it is potentially a significant force of individual disempowerment. There is a simple social observation that drives this critique of institutionalized mediation and the argument for a focus on proactive conflict resolution: While there is tremendous growth in the study, use and training in alternative methods of conflict resolution, people tend to feel that their lives and the communities in which they live are less peaceful and more conflict ridden. This paradox suggests that we are not doing nearly as much as we could in exploring how conflict resolution takes place and affects society-at-large. The worldview of the consultative intervention model suggests that the route to a proactive practice of conflict resolution is one that places proactive outcomes on an equal level with the finite outcomes of a process and that the pathway to doing so is through conscious engagement with participants about these possible effects. The specific ways in which the consultative intervention model would go about accomplishing this engagement are encapsulated in the argument for educative and unity-centered conflict resolution. EDUCATIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION The link between conflict resolution and worldview established in our model raises difficult and intriguing questions for the practice of conflict resolution. The pervasiveness and complex map of worldviews within any attempt to resolve a conflict — as the disputants, the intervener and the process each carry with them worldviews — suggests that results of resolution attempts may be significantly shaped by how the various worldviews have interacted and been understood. At the same time, it presents the necessity to review and examine how conflict resolution processes currently engage with the question of worldview and the possibilities of how processes might accomplish this engagement. Conventional mediation is not designed to engage at the level of worldview. In its conception as “negotiation carried out with the assistance of a third party” (Goldberg, Sander, and Rogers, 1992: 103), mediation maintains the primary commitment to disputant autonomy present in negotiation. This commitment to disputant autonomy has been largely conceived in wholly subjective and individualistic terms. Autonomy is seen as rooted in the individual choices being made by a disputant concerning her or his interests and goals in engaging in the process.3 One scholar summarizes that “according to conventional wisdom, the implicit purpose of negotiation is to serve one’s interests” (Fox, 1996: 95–96). Further, “power [is] conceived as the ability to alter outcomes according to one’s preferences and builds from a baseline in which negotiators presumably feel entitled to develop and use such preferences” (Fox, 1996: 96). As a popular conflict resolution text puts it, “Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others. It is a back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991: xvii). Dilemmas with this model are increasingly being noted. Like the traditional concept of negotiation as a whole, the place of autonomy within it stresses self-interest at the expense of social context. “The dominant paradigm is overly simplistic” in that “it relies too much on the assumption that negotiators are always trying to maximize their selfinterest. It ignores the social context of negotiation, overlooking such important phenomena as social norms, relationships between negotiators, group decision processes, and the behavior of third parties” (Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993: 8). It has been noted that “[t]he fixed-pie perception is the belief that one’s own interests are completely opposed to those of the other party” (Thompson, Valley, and Kramer, 1995: 468). This “fixed-pie bias” is so entrenched that “when negotiators are provided with information designed to refute the fixed-pie perception, many continue to persevere in this belief” (Thompson and DeHarpport: 1994 referenced in Thompson, Valley, and Kramer, 1995: 468–69). Autonomy, in other words, is better construed as a function of context. It is a relational and reflexive phenomenon. One’s autonomy will be heightened in some relationships and lessened in others, depending on the patterns of interaction with the various participants involved. How one person perceives and expresses his or her autonomy may impact upon the degree of another’s autonomy and how it is expressed as well. At the same time, autonomy has an objective dimension. In some contexts and surroundings, the autonomy of similarly situated individuals will be understood and expressed with the same degree of depth and intensity, and in a similar manner, because the context promotes and structures that response. One study of the treatment of lowincome persons in court-sanctioned negotiation processes noted the following: In the sanction effect, tenants are punished for exercising self-agency assertively. In the subversion effect, tenants assert their interests, but their efforts are rebuffed or ignored. Because direct use of self-agency was ineffective, tenants often distort their agentic expression in order to protect their most fundamental interest — shelter. In the silencing effect, people of authority refuse to speak directly to tenants, confirming and reinforcing tenants’ lack of self-agency (Fox, 1996: 105). The challenges posed by this contextual understanding of autonomy for conventional mediation are well highlighted through the lens of worldview. Certain worldviews tend more to submission and others to assertive self-expression. As well, modes and styles of communication are shaped by the worldviews animating them. The individualistic autonomy inherent within the current models of negotiation and conventional mediation are, as such, biased toward a particular worldview and thus favor disputants who primarily conceive of and respond to the world as a power-struggle. In this respect, mediator neutrality is anything but neutral. It favors, though unintentionally, certain disputants and disputing behavior over others. The response of the consultative intervention model to these dilemmas with contemporary mediation practice is actively to conceive of conflict resolution processes as learning zones. Specifically, engaging in a conflict resolution process should furnish the participants with an opportunity for learning about self, others and how conflicts emerge. Allowing this learning to occur will have two potential effects: first, it may facilitate a proactive conflict resolution practice because it will engage the disputants in conscious reflection; and second, it may facilitate a more harmonious, meaningful process with better outcomes because disputants will be reflecting upon the nature of conflict and their conflicting behavior in the context of trying to settle the specific matter before them. Process as a learning zone could mean many things, and some of the options one can imagine would be quite unrealistic and ineffective. The purpose is not to turn a conflict resolution process into a training seminar. Nor is to become a lecture or a therapy session where individuals explore the deeper recesses of their psyche. All of these other approaches to learning replace the resolution aspect of the process as opposed to deepening and augmenting it. Our vision of process as a learning zone has three aspects: worldview self-education; education as challenge and transparency; and education and unity. WORLDVIEW SELF-EDUCATION Disputants in a conflict resolution process should be given the opportunity and encouraged to become aware of and reflect upon their own worldviews, the predominant worldviews that exist and their connection to conflict and conflict resolution processes. The argument that supports the utility of this approach can be expressed in a very straightforward manner: Certain worldviews are more likely to facilitate quicker, more peaceful and more satisfactory outcomes than others. The challenge for disputants is to become aware of how their worldview affects the attempts to resolve the present conflict, and why and how certain other behaviors and approaches may be justified if they wish to attempt resolution. There are many ways within a process to affect such a form of educative selfreflection. Transformative mediation tries to accomplish self-reflection by making apparent and primary moments of other-centeredness and self-awareness as these get expressed through the process. Our understanding of the consultative intervention model is that the encouragement to educative self-reflection should be more conscious and explicit. For example, opening monologues need not be constrained to outlining a generic description of a process and clarifying financial or other ancillary issues. Rather, an opening monologue could extend to a form of more substantive engagement simply by offering disputants an explanation for the rationale underlying the process in which they are about to engage. Such an explanation could include a statement of the connection between worldview and conflict resolution, the predominant matrix of worldviews present, and the need to be aware of these as disputants attempt to communicate to pursue a solution.4 This opening engagement then becomes a template for later intervention and further educative effects. When the process stalls or breaks down, a resort to further, more explicit education may be welcomed by the disputants and may be an avenue toward disputants’ finding a way to keep the process moving. EDUCATION AS CHALLENGE AND TRANSPARENCY There are some unintended and inappropriate connotations associated with the use of the term “education” in this context. People do not come to conflict resolution processes to be educated, and it is presumptuous to assume that individuals whom one has typically never met are in need of any form of education. However, the point is not for the intervener to become an educator. If this were to occur, conflict resolution would typically not be successful. What educates in this model is the process itself. The process should reinforce self-reflection and other-centered understanding at the level of worldview. This result can be achieved by recognizing that self-education occurs in the context of challenge and engagement, not indulgence and excessive comfort. People who are driven to evaluate themselves and their approach to an issue typically do so because they have been offered a vision of alternative choices about how the situation can be dealt with and given the opportunity to make their own choices. In the context of our model, the challenge to be offered to disputants is quite straightforward. First, it must be clearly stated that worldviews, approaches to resolution of conflict, and outcomes are all interrelated. Second, the process must be transparent and make clear the worldview underlying the approach to conflict resolution that is being offered to disputants. Making these points is ethical, fair and educative. It invites introspection on how individuals go about resolving conflicts and the role of their worldviews in those choices, and welcomes them to evaluate whether it is possible and equitable for them to proceed in the process the intervener is offering. EDUCATION AND UNITY This challenge and transparency in the consultative intervention model will always revolve around the issue of unity. The consultative process challenges disputants to explore how they can build a degree of unity in the situation before them and to conceive of the outcome of the process as one of building a more stable and substantive basis of unity between them. As such, a consultative process will invite disputants to view their particular conflict from the matrix of disunity–unity. The role of unity is discussed further in the next section of the article. Combining these three components of conflict resolution processes as learning zones, the vision of what a consultative process must do becomes obvious. It should invite participants consciously to reflect on the range of predominant worldviews and the relationship of those worldviews to approaches to resolving conflict. It should challenge them to conceive and act within the process according to the worldview of the consultative intervention model or another mode that is also centered on unity. UNITY-CENTERED CONFLICT RESOLUTION Thus far it has been argued that the consultative intervention model implies the efficacy of proactive and educative processes of conflict resolution. An understanding of these proactive and educative dimensions of conflict resolution is, however, incomplete without a full understanding of the core element of the consultative intervention model — unity. The worldview of unity as proposed in the developmental paradigm of conflict resolution offers a severe critique of alternative dispute resolution models. This critique becomes more apparent when viewing conflict resolution as a group decision-making process and noting the relationship between truth seeking and conflict resolution. CONFLICT RESOLUTION AS A GROUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Part of the evidence that the consultative intervention model preoccupation with unity is not substantially represented in contemporary conflict resolution processes is the actual language and modalities used within these other processes. Almost without exception, the language and behavior employed in contemporary processes are that of division, separation and conflict. We speak of “parties” or “disputants” and emphasize “positions” and “interests”, while looking for ways to “intervene” in the conflict. It is, of course, hard not to speak in these terms, especially in cultures where conflict resolution processes are employed against a backdrop of adversarial adjudicative processes. Nonetheless, this terminology should be recognized for what it is—a choice. Further, it is a choice that reinforces a particularly individualized understanding of conflict resolution that in turn reinforces the process as one of bargaining to an outcome. It highlights the sense that the conflict is something that occurs between individuals and groups, and as such intervention is something that occurs in the space in between two otherwise discrete and separated lives. Partially, this division is reflected in the language of intervention itself. Mediators are taught to focus on the “level”, “target”, “focus” and “intensity” of the intervention that is required in a particular conflict (Moore, 1996: 76– 77). In this interventional model, mediators are taught to focus on “changing the substance or content of the dispute. The mediator may look for ways to explore data, to expand the number of acceptable options on the negotiation table, to narrow the choices when the parties are overwhelmed with possibilities, or to integrate proposals made by the disputants” (Moore, 1996: 77). It is the job of the mediator to help individuals avoid the “particular idiosyncratic problems that are pushing the parties toward impasse” and focus them instead on an institutionalized model that aims at resolving the specific differences between them (Moore, 1996: 76). The problems with this individual-centered model of mediation—its lack of concern for the on-going relationship between the individuals, its denial of the emotional and contextual nature of the conflict, and its inability to allow for broad interaction and understanding to develop—have been well discussed elsewhere (Baruch-Bush and Folger, 1994). One issue not stressed in these earlier critiques, however, is that conflict resolution is almost inevitably a group process and exercise. Take, for example, a divorce mediation. Once the mediation process is engaged, it is constructively thought about in terms other than as two spouses engaged in a conflict seeking to resolve their dispute through third-party intervention. For the duration of the mediation a particular type of group has formed—made up of the mediator and the couple—which has its own dynamics, mode of communication and challenge. Indeed, mediation could be helpfully construed as a group decision-making process. The empowering aspect of mediation is that it allows the disputants to choose the outcome, as opposed to adjudicatory processes where the outcome is imposed. However, the decision being made in mediation has to be made together, with the input of all the participants. It is a group decision in every sense of the term. Group dynamics in mediation, however, have not been the subject of widespread study and analysis, and very little emphasis is placed on the group dimension of the process in the conventional models of the practice of conventional mediation. This is especially surprising given the practical utility that is offered by thinking about mediation in terms of a group process. For example, the Decision Emergence Theory identifies four phases a group passes through in reaching a decision: orientation, conflict, emergence and reinforcement. Applying such a theory to mediation offers a precise set of insights into how the mediation model should look and what should occur at each step of the process. It also highlights the importance of the attitudinal, interpersonal and identity factors that are relevant to any group faced with the task of making a decision (Fisher and Ellis, 1980). Further, the group decision-making model of mediation highlights a significant gap within most contemporary models of mediation—the absence of any form of group preparation for the task of resolving the conflict. It is perhaps a function of a mediator-centrism that there is much literature on how a mediator should prepare for a mediation, a little bit about how individual disputants should be prepared, and almost nothing on how the disputants as a collectivity – a group – should be prepared.5 The fact that the ultimate decision in a mediation, and the many smaller ones leading up to it, are often group decisions, suggests that a conflict resolution model should orient individuals to the group nature of their task. This research into group dynamics highlights as well the importance of conceiving of conflict resolution in terms of a unity-building process. It is a truism that the more united a group is going into a decision-making process, the easier the process will be. It is also obvious that people who have resorted to inviting intervention into their conflict could not likely be deemed “united” on any significant measurable scale. Within these two facts, however, one can identify the different map of conflict resolution that is provided when one thinks of it in terms of unity. From the mindset of unity, conflict resolution can be construed as a process of building points of unity between individuals. This mindset establishes a foundation for effective and efficient group decision-making on the more difficult and consuming issues. The purpose of a process as a whole in this vision is to help participants establish and become conscious of the points of unity that exist between them, so that these points of unity may be the foundation not only for resolution but also for altering the inner and outer lives—and the worldview—of individuals and the communities in which they live. It is helpful to take a snapshot of how processes work. Conventional mediation is usually constructed as a process of distillation or funneling from a broad base of information and ideas to a finite outcome. This distillation actually occurs twice within mediation: first with the facts and then with possible outcomes. The first part of a mediation process narrows the base of information provided by the disputants to a list of material facts, and the second part narrows the list of all possible agreements to, one hopes, a single agreement. The role of the mediator in this process is to be the agent of distillation and narrowing, and to ensure that a context exists which allows such distillation to occur in an environment of relative peace and efficiency. The interventions and input of the mediator are primarily, therefore, the undertaking of making resolution possible and manageable by helping disputants realize what should be deemed most important, relevant and plausible. A pictorial image of the institutionalized mediation process could be as follows: Pool of Information and Possible Outcomes Mediator Distills Information and Possible Outcomes Final Decision Results from Successful Distillation Figure 1: Conventional Model of Mediation As opposed to this model, the focus on group decision-making and unity implied by the consultative intervention model conceives of a conflict resolution process in a multidimensional way. One dimension is parallel and analogous to the distillation processes of institutionalized mediation. At the same time, however, an expanding and broadening process is taking place. This broadening process is one in which small points of unity, which are encapsulated in small decisions along the way, are put to the service of creating an ever-broader basis of unity from which creative and harmonious outcomes can be pursued. In this vision, while an intervener is an agent of distillation, she or he is also acting as an agent of unity. The practical implications of this additional role can be numerous, but at least include the intervener’s identifying points of unity between disputants when achieved and reminding parties of these points and the work that has been done to accomplish them, when difficulties are encountered later. A pictorial image of a consultative intervention process is presented in Figure 2. Pool of Information and Possible Outcomes Consulting Body Searches for Points of Unity Moderator Assists the Consulting Body in its Search for Points of Unity Expanding Points of Unity Lay Foundation for Unity-Based Decision(s) and Resolution of Conflict Figure 2: Consultative intervention model The value of this two-dimensional process (Fig. 2), which stems from conceiving of the participants as being in a group, is that it attacks a situation of conflict in a multiplicity of ways simultaneously. Like institutionalized mediation, it manages and organizes the information and options, but at the same time it is developing an internal dynamic within the group that should make it progressively easier for the participants to reach a final resolution. Every point of unity that is achieved acts like a foundation on which the ultimate, most pressing differences can be leavened and molded into an agreement. Further, conceiving of intervention as a process of broadening points of unity is the means through which processes can become importantly proactive and educative. Participants are exposed by the process to approaches and an understanding of how to work in groups and make decisions with others. At the same time, they are exposed to thinking about their own conflicts from the perspective of unity, which in itself can have the positive effect of reorienting individuals to the meanings of the conflicts in which they are engaged. Ultimately, individuals are being encouraged to view their own lives and the lives of the communities they are in through the lens of unity and, one hopes, to nurture a unified pattern of social life. CONFLICT RESOLUTION AS A TRUTH-SEEKING PROCESS The mature worldview of the consultative intervention model acknowledges the interrelatedness of self with others, the effects that one’s decisions and actions have on those with whom one is in a relationship, and the reality that being in conflicts and resolving them is part of a larger social and political process of constructing healthy and enduring patterns of community life. This, of course, does not mean that individuals are expected to come to a resolution forum with the consultative worldview. Rather, the key issue is that the process itself be structured to reflect the mature worldview and that participants be made consciously aware of this structure so that they can (a) make an informed choice of whether to engage in the process or not and (b) be clear about the expectations as to their behavior in the consultative process. In a sense, therefore, a process should create a context in which participants are challenged, engaged at the level of worldview, encouraged to interact according to a mature worldview, and left free to choose to continue participation or not in full awareness of the type of undertaking in which they are engaged. One key element of structuring a process to reflect the consultative intervention model is the issue of truth. We have long since abandoned the fiction of moral association of conflict resolution and ordering systems with the idea that they result in the appearance of truth. While Gandhi embodied the maxim that “pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent” (Gandhi, 1969: 6), a predominant current worldview is that such truth-talk is itself a problem and does not contribute much to social order and peace. The idea of truth, like many things in the postmodern world, has been overtaken by intense debate and disagreement. In much religious, scientific and philosophical discourse a commitment remains to the existence of objective and universal truths. However, this commitment is now coupled with aggressive schools of thought that question both the idea of truth itself and the utility of even employing such terminology. Truth-talk has also been a historical cause for oppression and subjugation, offering a framework for justifying particular social hierarchies and outcomes. The consultative worldview with its emphasis on unity appears, at first glance, to ignore the heated debates about notions of truth and to maintain a fidelity to the idea of objective and universal truths. This idea would be a misunderstanding. The notion of “truth” in a broad generic sense is innately relevant to unity discourse. A social condition of unity is always strongest when based on the broadest, most accurate base of information possible. To the degree that unity is built around deception, mistruths or substantive misunderstandings, it is weak and prone to erosion and decay. In the consultative intervention model, therefore, it is incumbent that truth enters into the discourse and process of conflict resolution. The crucial question is how. The minimalist approach is to equate truth with a concept of “fact” that accepts the account of something as a fact if it is based on as complete a degree of information as the participants are able to marshal. While this fact may not be logically or philosophically equivalent to a truth—indeed such a truth may not exist—using truth to describe factual consensus rooted in a broad, shared base of information can serve as a motivation for the participants and as a source of justification and legitimatization of the outcome. This is especially true in a group-oriented process, which is how we have described consultative intervention model. In group decision-making, issues of trust or mistrust between the members must be consciously addressed and dealt with properly. In conditions of severe mistrust, where information is used as a weapon instead of as an engine for resolution, unity and efficient group decision-making are often impossible. This level of mistrust, unfortunately, is commonly found in situations of conflict—some might say it is an inevitable aspect of conflict. One avenue to nurturing at least a functionally plausible level of trust is by focusing participants on the idea that the most enduring and satisfactory solutions to conflicts are those rooted in the highest degree of truth—in this minimalist account meaning the broadest possible consensus on factual matters. The process should then be structured to encourage participants to lend their agency to expanding this base of truth, of consensus-based facts. It is worth noting that there exists an important psychological dimension to making truth-talk an integral part of the conflict resolution process. Individuals typically come to conflict situations internally conflicted about their own relationship to the truth. Individuals tend to be convinced that they have a monopoly on the truth; however, this commitment is thin and easily displaced as a falsity. Displacement can be a problem, however, because it can result in reactions that make effective resolution difficult— including disengagement related to loss of face, stubbornness, insistence on one’s correctness and blaming of the other participants and/or the intervener for exposing the individual to embarrassment. As such, if fidelity to one’s own concept of the truth need be displaced, it should be accomplished in a way that positively reinforces engagement in the process of resolution, as well as exposing the individuals to possible positive learning. One way to accomplish this refocus is by orienting participants to truth itself—but to the truth as an evolutionary, shared and composite entity, as opposed to a possessed and monolithic one. One’s understanding of the truth, in this model, is always expanding, and in situations of conflict it requires engagement with the perceptions of the other participants in order to be expanded to its fullest. In other words, the process of conflict resolution can be described and introduced to participants as a collective truth-seeking exercise. From the outset, therefore, individuals are ideally placed within a context that encourages a slow increase in the degree of trust between the participants, reinforcing the ability for the individuals to agree on the truth of particular information and to form points of unity around them. BEYOND MEDIATION? The argument has been that the consultative intervention model envisions conflict resolution as being proactive, educative and unity-centered. The discussion and examples above should well establish our suggestion that contemporary models of the practice of mediation—in particular conventional mediation—are neither designed nor preoccupied sufficiently with these themes. While other models show definite movement along these axes, none seems to us to be consciously and satisfactorily engaged at this level. The consultative model reflects a gradual, evolutionary process. It requires individuals in the field of conflict resolution to engage with issues of worldview and unity—whether in practice or research—and to explore how their current practices could be informed by the consultative intervention model. We have been encouraged in this regard by our interactions with students, practitioners and academics who have begun to challenge and explore how thinking about these issues might impact on contemporary mediation practice and theory, and who have identified the connection between the structure of mediation and the worldview it embodies. As well, there are a number of dynamic experiments underway in conflict resolution practice, as well as an increasing recognition of the need to enhance the plurality of processes that are available and utilized. The essence of the current challenge, as far as we see it, is to recognize a condition of unity as the broader purpose of conflict resolution. This recognition, of course, does not deny the importance of a distributive outcome, nor does it contradict in anyway the transformative and healing goals that are the aims of some processes. These outcomes are all relevant and important to a consultative process, but they exist as elements of a broader pursuit of a condition of unity. Endnotes 1. So-called "mature" conflict resolution in our developmental model is labeled consultative conflict resolution or the “C-Mode.” Our research into the dynamics of the C-Mode has resulted in the development of our own intervention model, called Conflict-free Conflict Resolution (CFCR). CFCR had its origins in the family conflict-resolution practice of one of the authors in the 1970s and 1980s. The formal development of CFCR began in earnest around ten years ago, and it has formed the basis for the conflict-resolution curriculum at Landegg International University, Switzerland since 1996. The conventional model of CFCR appears somewhat parallel to mediation—there is a third party who intervenes without decision-making authority. The role of the intervenor and the process itself is, however, unique. The intervenor’s main function is to structure a framework that allows disputants to create and recognize points of unity as these develop, and to build upon them toward a resolution. The process is distinct in that it consciously has an educative dimension which revolves around the participants being challenged to engage with their own worldviews and their relationship between the conflict and their worldviews. The authors are currently preparing full descriptions and applications of CFCR for publication. 2. One clear example of this is the debate over the effect of the use of alternative processes on the securing of rights for minorities and legally or socially disadvantaged groups. The use of alternatives potentially privatizes conflicts where there exists a significant public interest that could have a potentially significant impact on the development of law and policy. 3. We use the term “proactive conflict resolution” to stress the orientation that engagement in conflictresolution processes should significantly re-order the future intensity and incidence of conflict for the parties. In our usage, the term “proactive” connotes the creation of a state of unity in which the appearance or repetition of conflict is increasingly unlikely. This is somewhat distinct from a preventative orientation that stresses preventing an intensification of a pre-existing conflict, or the re-appearance of a specific set of conditions likely to give rise to a conflict. One notable example of existing literature that touches on the same themes is John Burton’s concept of “provention” (Burton, 1990). 4 . This concept of autonomy is reflected in how conventional mediation sometimes retreats from engaging in any inquiry into the motivations or animating issues behind the reasons for a particular choice by a disputant. Once a choice has been made, even if it appears to be self-destructive, it is often respected because it is viewed as the product of autonomous choice, and to intervene would be to violate principles of mediator neutrality. This statement should not be understood overly broadly. There are instances where mediators will intervene to the benefit of one side in a manner that often appears at odds with mediator neutrality. One context in which this is sometimes necessary is family mediation where patterns of abuse may co-opt the process. Typically, however, such situations remain the subject of ethical and stylistic debate within the field. 5 . This is the basic model we use in our consultative intervention model. Its opening stage, which is analogous to the opening of a mediation, requires the intervener (Note: the name given to the third-party intervener here is “moderator”) to engage those involved in an opportunity to reflect upon the predominant worldviews, their relationship to the modes of conflict resolution, and the mode in which they wish to pursue resolution of their particular conflict. Unlike institutional mediation, therefore, this opening stage is typically significantly longer and more substantive, and forms a substantive foundation for the later stages of the process. 6 . This mediation model incorporates stages for group preparation into the process as one tool for preparing the participants to make group decisions. References Baruch-Bush, Robert A., and Joseph P. Folger. 1994. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bonta, Bruce D. 1996. “Conflict Resolution Among Peaceful Societies: The Culture of Peacefulness”, Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 33. No. 4: 403–20. Burton, John. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. The Conflict Series. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Danesh, Hossain B., and Roshan Danesh. 2002. “Has Conflict Resolution Grown Up? Toward a New Model of Decision Making and Conflict Resolution”, International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring/Summer, pp. 59–76. Fisher, B. Aubrey, and Donald G. Ellis. 1980. Small Group Decision-Making: Communication and the Group Process. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books. Fox, Erica L. 1996. “Alone in the Hallway: Challenges to Effective Self-Representation in Negotiation”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review. Vol. 1. No. 85. Spring: 85–111. Gandhi, Mohandas K. (1969). Non-violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Schocken Books. Goldberg, Stephen B., Frank E.A. Sander, and Nancy H. Rogers. 1992. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and Other Processes. 2nd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers. Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press. Moore, Christopher W. 1996. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pruitt, Dean G., and Peter J. Carnevale. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing. Stein, Janice G. 2001. The Cult of Efficiency. Toronto: House of Anansi Press. Thompson, Leigh, Kathleen L. Valley, and Roderick M. Kramer. 1995. “The Bittersweet Feeling of Success: An Examination of Social Perception in Negotiation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 31: 467–92. Thompson, Leigh, and T. DeHarpport. 1994. “Social Judgment, Feedback, and Interpersonal Learning in Negotiation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 58: 327–45. Referenced in Leigh Thompson, Kathleen L. Valley, and Roderick M. Kramer, 1995: 468–69. White, Lucie E. 1990. “Subordination, Rhetorical Survival Skills, and Sunday Shoes: Notes on the Hearing of Mrs. G.”, Buffalo Law Review. Vol. 38, No. 1. Winter: 4. Quoted in Erica L. Fox, “Alone in the Hallway: Challenges to Effective Self-Representation in Negotiation”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review. (Spring, 1996) Vol. 1. No. 85: 105. CONFLICT-FREE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ∗ H. Danesh & R. Danesh Abstract Conflict-free Conflict Resolution (CFCR) is an emerging theory and practice of conflict resolution. Building upon traditions of innovation within the field of dispute resolution, as well as insights from a variety of disciplines including conflict studies, peace studies and developmental psychology, CFCR aims to be a unity-centered practice. Both the method and outcomes of CFCR are attempts to reflect the possibilities of helping to create conditions of unity between individuals and communities. The purpose of this article is primarily descriptive, aiming to give an initial overview of CFCR as a practice. This description is rooted in the early applications of CFCR in a number of contexts. In this article, the theoretical underpinnings of the CFCR model are summarized, CFCR’s connections with the contemporary conflict resolution scholarship are explored, and the three stages of CFCR are outlined. INTRODUCTION The relationship between conflict resolution theory and practice has been a vexing one. Joseph A. Scimecca argues, in reference to “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) “…there is little, if any theory in the field of ADR” and similarly that “practitioners do little more than pay lip service to theory” (1993, 212). This lack of theory reflects the fact that the predominant trend in the field of conflict resolution has been for theory to follow practice. As Avruch, Black, and Scimecca state, “…theory follows practice,…or one can say that practice dominates theory. The implication of this, of course, is that where practice is situated there theory will be derived” (1991, 4). While practice may dominate theory, it is also true that underlying any practice is implicit theory—sets of assumptions that justify, explain, and rationalize the shape of particular practices. Admittedly, the label “theory” should only be attached to a practice that has achieved a degree of explicitness and systematization. However, this rather formal qualification does not change the fact that practice always operates within architectures of ideas, assumptions, and meanings that shape and inform it. Practice and This paper is a pre-publication of: Danesh, Roshan & Danesh, H.B. (2004). Conflict-Free Conflict Resolution: Process and Methodologies, Peace and Conflict Studies journal, Volume 11, Number 2, pp 55-110 (Fall 2004) ∗ theory are always integrated and interrelated—we just might not be conscious of this fact or of the nature of the underlying theory in a particular instance.8 As well, in many sectors of the conflict resolution field, the historic pattern of practice dominating theory—and leaving implicit the theoretical underpinnings of particular practices—has been giving way to those individuals who consciously work with both theory and practice to integrate them. As John S. Murray observes, “…conflict resolution theorists and practitioners operate within two independent cultures; yet they both understand and appreciate their interdependence.” He further notes that “many academics also conduct an active, albeit part-time, conflict resolution practice,” while “practitioners do not often accept theoretical models without question, nor do they apply those theories without shaping them to fit specific conditions” (1993, 222). Perhaps the clearest examples of the growth of conscious integration of conflict resolution theory and practice are the number of explicit attempts at process and practice innovation in recent years. When innovation is the conscious object, a level of transparency concerning the relationship between theory and practice is often achieved. This is seen in such well-known innovations as transformative mediation (Baruch Bush and Folger, 1994), narrative mediation (Winslade and Monk, 2000), and the cooperative conflict-resolution model (Coleman and Fisher-Yoshida). For example, the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution makes explicit the importance of conscious integration of theory and practice. Peter T. Coleman and Beth Fisher-Yoshida write, “Our philosophy links theory and research closely with practice….we employ a ‘reflective scholar-practitioner model’ in our many scholarly, educational and practical endeavors” (undated, 3). A similarly conscious process to integrate theory and practice has taken place over the last ten years with the development of Conflict-Free Conflict Resolution (CFCR). A small group of scholar-practitioners—primarily located at Landegg International University in Switzerland where both authors taught and conducted research—has articulated a particular set of assumptions and ideas about the nature of “conflict” and “resolution.” Based on these assumptions, these scholar-practitioners have critiqued current predominant practices and developed CFCR as an innovative practice reflecting those particular assumptions and ideas. The authors draw from their respective fields of expertise and practice—psychiatry with specialization in marriage and family issues, conflicts and violence studies and peace education (H.B. Danesh) and law with specialization in constitutional law and ADR. (R. Danesh). CFCR can take a variety of forms, and be used in a number of contexts. As this paper aims to introduce the broad spectrum of applications of CFCR to a wide audience of scholars and practitioners in the fields of ADR, peace studies, and conflict studies, a single point of comparison is not chosen. Rather, at various parts of the paper, different points of reference found in current literature and practice are employed. In discussing 8 Within this paper we have tried to use specific referents – such as ADR or names of specific processes as much as possible. However, at times “dispute resolution” and “conflict resolution” are used interchangeably in the paper. The reason that one term might have been chosen is that the specific context may imply the appropriateness of one over the other. the ideas and assumptions underlying CFCR, emphasis is placed on positioning CFCR within the context of the evolution of ADR, and in particular relational oriented approaches such as transformative mediation. In describing the process of CFCR, explicit comparisons are drawn to a predominant process – problem-solving mediation. This comparison was chosen to reflect the fact that CFCR is partially borne in reaction to problem-solving processes, and a critique of the outcomes they pursue. Finally, in discussing the practice of CFCR, emphasis is placed on the use of CFCR post-conflict societies, and its potential contributions to processes of social integration. CORE IDEAS AND ASSUMPTIONS Many of the theoretical underpinnings of CFCR have been outlined in earlier publications (Danesh and Danesh, 2002a, 2002b). A synopsis of certain central themes is provided here as a foundation for the description of CFCR practice. Creating Conditions of Unity as the Goal of Conflict Resolution Processes An emphasis on creating harmonious relationships and communal patterns is a common theme in ADR literature. In some respects, a relationship-orientation was intimately connected with the beginnings of the ADR movement, particularly in its connection with movements for social justice, inclusion, and community transformation. Aspects of this orientation, it has been argued, have been co-opted by forces of professionalization, systematization, and efficiency concerns (Goldberg, 1997; Menkel-Meadow, 1997). As Carrie Menkel-Meadow writes: The romantic days of ADR appear to be over. To the extent that proponents of ADR, like myself, were attracted to it because of its promise of flexibility, adaptability, and creativity, we now see the need for ethics, standards of practice and rules as potentially limiting and containing the promise of alternatives to rigid adversarial modes of dispute resolution. It is almost as if we thought that anyone who would engage in ADR must of necessity be a moral, good, creative, and of course, ethical person. That we are here today is deeply ironic and yet, also necessary, as “appropriate” dispute resolution struggles to define itself and ensure its legitimacy against a variety of theoretical and practical challenges. While one strand of ADR… [the qualitative one]…has always associated itself with pursuing “the good” and the “just”, the other strand of ADR…[the quantitative one] has produced institutionalized forms of dispute resolution in the courts and in private contracts. To the extent that ADR has become institutionalized and more routine, it is now practiced by many different people, pursuing many different goals….thus, lawyers as “advocates” as well as “problem-solvers” and parties now come to the wide variety of dispute resolution processes with a whole host of different intentions and behaviors, many of which may be inconsistent with the original aims of some forms of ADR. (MenkelMeadow, 1997) While a rhetoric of co-optation has some resonance—especially in an age of extensive regulation and institutionalization of ADR, the predominance of particular interest-based models of negotiation and mediation that emphasize formal skills and technique over substantive engagement, and the ascendance of the legal profession in the conflict-resolution field—there nonetheless has been a resurgence of conflict resolution approaches that stress themes of social harmony, community building, and relationships. Robert M. Ackerman eloquently articulates this orientation: At times of conflict, formal process can contain disruption. It can maintain equilibrium. But process alone cannot build community. Even more collaborative processes, like mediation, will build no more than a superficial, temporary truce unless the process is managed to allow the parties to discover a common bond that is deeper than process alone. Often that bond will be found in shared experience a shared history through which disputants recognize in each other common elements of the human condition. At its best, a dispute resolution process will help people to discover their common history and unearth commonly-held values. Often (all too often, it seems) shared experience will be in the form of shared pain. In the end, social capital is the product not of spontaneous combustion, but of history, experience, and effort. And what remains of process? Process is important, as is technique. One must learn the fingering of a trumpet in order to make music. But there must be something of substance underlying the process; something to touch the soul after one admires the technique. Going through the motions and participating in dispute resolution processes without real engagement will produce notes, but not music. A pluralistic society, like a good jazz ensemble, requires the recognition and appreciation of differences, and the will to work and play together. (Ackerman, 2002) Transformative mediation is perhaps the most utilized and examined effort to centre a dispute resolution process on positive relational outcomes. Baruch Bush and Folger state that the purpose of a “transformative orientation” is to “help transform the individuals involved” and their pursuit of moral development. (Baruch Bush and Folger, 1994) This development is achieved by looking, within the process, for opportunities for both “recognition” and “empowerment”. The values implicit in the transformative orientation are rooted in a “relational worldview” that “compassionate strength (moral maturity) embodies an intrinsic goodness inherent in human beings.” (Baruch Bush and Folger, 1994) It is the human capacity of integration, our ability to balance and integrate, which is at the essence of what it means to be human. As Baruch Bush and Folger state, “human beings are thus simultaneously separate and connected, autonomous and linked, self-interested and self-transcending. Furthermore, they are capable of relating these dualities in an integrated wholeness that makes them capable of genuine goodness of conduct.” CFCR addresses these concerns about community, autonomy, relationships, harmony, substantive connection, and engagement by centrally positioning the concept of unity at the core of practice. Unity, in this definition, is a conscious, purposeful condition of convergence of two or more unique entities in a state of harmony, integration, and cooperation to create a new, evolving entity or entities, usually, of a same or a higher nature (Danesh and Danesh, 2002a). In this argument, states of unity underlie key life processes at the biological, psychological, and social levels. This emphasis on the connection between unity and life highlights a core proposition concerning the relationship between unity and conflict, namely, that conflict may be usefully considered as an absence of a state of unity. A conflict is a reflection of a lack of a conscious state of awareness of the levels of interdependence between the involved entities, and as such it is through tackling the challenge of unity—and fostering a higher degree of integration and cooperation—that conflict is both lessened and resolved. Implicit within this concept is a partial critique of how conflict is treated in much ADR literature. On the one hand, there has been helpful shift from a preoccupation with the destructive nature of conflict to emphasizing the positive role conflict can play in life. On the other hand, this normalization of conflict has created a condition where the pervasiveness and inevitability of conflict in human life has assumed a taken-for-granted quality that is not questioned (Danesh and Danesh, 2002a). While human life is filled with conflict, a unity-orientation argues that as life processes increasingly have a focus on creating patterns of unity, incidences of conflict become both less prevalent and less severe. A unity-centered practice is a proactive one, which aims to help individuals gain the skills and insights to create patterns of relationships where the roots of potential conflict are recognized early, and individuals gain the necessary insights and skills to prevent the appearance of new conflicts through early conscious action. This emphasis on unity demonstrates both the continuities and discontinuities with other dispute resolution processes. Similar to the transformative orientation, there is an emphasis on the human power of integration, and navigating the relationship between the individual and collective. Yet, the concept of unity—which in this definition emphasizes the relationship between unity and diversity—suggests a more essential re-configuring of how we position conflict in relation to human life processes. The implications are not only for a transformation in how we perceive conflict as a positive force in human growth, but also a call to privilege unity, as opposed to conflict, in our conceptualizing of the underlying forces driving forward individual growth, social practices, and social change. Modes of Conflict Resolution are Developmental in Nature In “Has Conflict Resolution Grown Up? Towards A Developmental Model of Decision Making and Conflict Resolution,” we presented the foundations of a developmental model of conflict resolution (Danesh and Danesh, 2002b). In this model, both disputant behavior and the processes themselves are understood as reflecting particular categories of worldviews. These categories of worldviews are seen as existing on a developmental spectrum that is generally analogous to the periods of infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood in individual human life. Certain types of conflict, the incidence and frequency of conflict, and particular modes of resolution are seen as a greater ‘fit’ with certain worldviews, and a lesser ‘fit’ with other worldviews. The worldview of adulthood, it was argued, is one in which there is a meaningful shift in orientation that highlights the role and importance of unity in human life and challenges ideas of the inevitability and indispensability of conflict for human life and existence. The idea of worldview, in this model, is seen as having three components: perspective, principle, and purpose. In general terms, perspective refers to one’s understanding of the structure of reality; principle refers to one’s understanding of justified and ethical action; and purpose refers to one’s perceptions of the objectives and goals of one’s existence. The predominant worldviews placed on a developmental spectrum were outlined in the following manner. (Table 1) Decision Making Stage of Development Perspective Level 1 Infancy World is… Me Level 2 Childhood Level 3 Adolescence Level 4 Adulthood World is… Dangerous World is… Jungle World is… One Principle Purpose Self- Instinctual SelfPreservation Interest Conscious Might is Right/Domination Self-/Group Preservation Survival of the Fittest/ Competition Truth and Justice To “Win” Unity in Diversity Table 1. The Developmental Stages of Decision Making When applied to conflict-resolution processes, the general conclusion offered is that the rise of mediation models and practices in the past fifty years is a central transition from authoritarian modes of conflict resolution (which reflect the worldview of childhood) toward consultative modes of conflict resolution (which reflect the worldview of adulthood). However, in this period of transition, some of the predominant structural elements and intervention practices of problem-solving mediation remain primarily reflections of the power-struggle modes of adolescence. The current challenge to the contemporary conflict-resolution movement at the level of process design is thus seen as the movement from power-struggle conflict resolution to consultative conflict resolution. CFCR is one attempt to encourage movement in this direction. The general matrix of modes of conflict resolution plotted on the developmental spectrum was described as outlined in Table 2. Decision Making Stage of Development Nature of Conflict Resolution Level 1 Infancy Survival Based Level 2 Childhood Force Based Level 3 Adolescence Power Based Level 4 Adulthood Unity Based Mode of Conflict Resolution Self-Centered (S-Mode) Authoritarian (A-Mode) Power Struggle (P-Mode) Consultative (C-Mode) Table 2. The Developmental Modes of Conflict Resolution This brief summary of the developmental model of conflict resolution is at the core of the conceptual foundation of CFCR. It is by engaging disputants with such concepts as worldview and unity that CFCR attempts to offer alternate ideas about the purposes of intervention in conflict situations. The use of the category of “worldview” is not unique to CFCR. It is employed by Baruch Bush and Folger, amongst others. However, as the above discussion illustrates, the understanding of worldview in CFCR, has two aspects which somewhat distinguish it from current usages in dispute resolution literature. First, is the effort to map, although in a preliminary form, the pattern of the development of worldview within the cycle of human life. Second, is an attempt to articulate a pivot— unity—around which the development of worldview can be seen to both revolve and evolve. Educative Conflict-Resolution A third foundation of CFCR is that it views conflict resolution through an educative paradigm. In particular, there exist benefits to processes encouraging individuals to reflect on how their own worldviews (a) shape the conflicts they experience and (b) impact their behavior and choices in attempting resolution. Further benefits flow from encouraging reflection on how their own worldviews may expand and evolve to justify and motivate alternate sets of behaviors and choices. Problem-solving mediation typically not only fails to engage the participants to explicitly focus on their worldview but also favors a particular worldview, which highlights distinctive values of individualism and liberalism, modes of assertiveness, and understandings of autonomy (Winslade and Monk, 2000). As such, the process is often biased toward individuals who best adopt and reflect a particular and exclusive worldview. An educative orientation within a conflict-resolution process has two main features. First, it involves building opportunities for critical self-reflection by participants, in particular around issues of worldview and orientation. Second, it requires that conflict resolution processes make transparent to participants their own assumptions about the nature of conflict and the character of resolution, and how the process tries to reflect these assumptions. The benefit of critical self-reflection and transparency is that both can translate into substantive empowerment for participants. Critical self-reflection on matters of worldview and unity allows participants to gain insights into how their own life processes contribute to conflict situations, and then allows for choices in the types of behaviors they wish to perpetuate and manifest in conflict situations. As well, providing a framework for self-reflection within a process heightens the opportunity for meaningful proactive outcomes to occur and situates individuals to diagnose and deal with future conflict situations without the need for intervention. Transparency is essential as a tool for empowerment, as it helps circumvent the disempowering effects of the values and cultural biases that often remain implicit and unspoken within processes. The issues of critical self-reflection and transparency require attention to a person’s emotions, interests, thoughts, and decisions. The suggestion by Fisher and Ury (1991, 21) that people separate themselves from the problem, is neither necessarily desirable nor wholly possible: As Avruch et al. observe: Emotions, in Fisher and Ury’s world, comprise something one must “get past” (by allowing to “ventilate,” for example) in order to get to underlying layers of interests. This, of course, is how one gets to the underlying stratum of rationality, where “efficient” problem solving is possible (Raiffa 1982:139). Separate the person from the problem, they advise. This is as much to say that one ought to separate the person from emotions. Such a prescription assumes a human nature— and a resulting conception of the person—in which the two, person and emotions, are in fact separable. (1991, 7) This emphasis on an educative orientation is not unique to CFCR, but merits being highlighted for the simple fact that is not an orientation which predominates in the dispute resolution field. While the elements of “recognition” and “empowerment” in transformative mediation similarly encourage a process of critical self-reflection, most problem-solving approaches do not. Rather, many predominant ADR approaches, and in particular the ways in which these approaches are taught and utilized, reinforce a skills orientation in which mastery of “form” is privileged over the long term benefits that can be gained from the substantive engagement with self and others that occurs when one is engaged in conflict and its resolution. The practice of CFCR, however, has also highlighted another important dimension of the educative dimension of dispute resolution processes. One of the main applications of CFCR has been the adoption of its main principles as a foundation for the Education for Peace (“EFP”) project in Bosnia and Herzegovina. EFP, as will be discussed later in this paper, utilizes the concepts of worldview and unity found in CFCR, as well the steps of the CFCR process, to design a multi-dimensional and sustained program for peaceful and integrated school communities. In this respect, a dispute resolution process has been institutionalized as part of an education system and culture. Martha Minow of Harvard Law School has pointed to EFP as an example of the use of conflict resolution methodologies as the basis for a program of “education for co-existence.” (Minow, 2002) Minow writes that some “conflict-resolution and peace education [such as EFP] programs teach students examples of successful peace building efforts, less to enhance skills than to alter students’ aspirations and understandings of political processes and nonviolent dispute resolution possibilities.”(Minow, 2002) This integration of peace building and conflict resolution approaches reflects important evolution in how peace and conflict studies are conceived. Social integration, the relationship between community self-sufficiency and global interdependence, and the fact that “obstacles to dialogue need to be removed by a profound love for the world” (Jeong, 2000) are increasingly significant themes in peace and conflict studies. In many respects this is parallel to the emergence of processes such as transformative mediation and CFCR which emphasize worldviews of integration, and using processes so that individual and groups are developing the building blocks of less conflicted and more unified future. COMPONENTS OF CFCR PRACTICE CFCR is one attempt to design a process that is group focused, unity based, educative, and reflects the Consultative (C-Mode) worldview. This section describes the main participants, structure, and components of the CFCR process, using problem-solving mediation as a reference point. The Participants in CFCR—A Group Orientation Embedded within the C-Mode worldview is a commitment to the centrality of unity. The C-Mode privileges unity as a paradigm of social relationships that holds the greatest potential for individual satisfaction and a collective state of peace. The C-Mode also positions unity as a lens through which individuals justify and mediate their choices and actions, particularly in situations of conflict and resolution. Translating this centrality of unity into the design of a conflict-resolution process implies a need to turn toward a group orientation and away from the paradigm of individual, autonomous agents who are participating in a process solely in their individual capacities and individual interests. The simplest and most direct way to illustrate and act upon this shift is to transform the language used within conflictresolution processes. One current tendency is to import terms of reference from the legal paradigm of adversarialism, such as “parties and “disputants.” These terms are rooted in the values of competition and winning that are embedded in Anglo-American models of adjudication. While there are very good rationales for the importation of this language, it nonetheless must be viewed as antithetical to the C-Mode. Such language reinforces distance and separation between the individuals involved in the conflict, implies the process is aimed at removing a condition of dispute between them (as opposed to constructing a positive state of unity), and deepens the perception that they are in the process as individual, autonomous agents who are in a contest with other individual, autonomous agents. The use of such language highlights the broader issue that processes such as mediation position the third-party neutral as intervening between a set of individuals, and the mediator is trained to focus on the individuals solely in their individual capacities. Within such a model of intervention, effects conducive to the appearance of unity will be very hard to achieve primarily because the collective dimension of conflict resolution is ignored. Almost every step in problem-solving mediation acts to reinforce the individualistic dimension of the conflict and to negate the collective—whether it be the recounting of the competing stories of the parties, or the practice of parties talking to each other through the mediator, or the practice of caucusing which positions information as an individually possessed tool and device. This individualistic orientation is also reflected in the principles underlying problemsolving approaches. For example, core principles such as “separate people from the problem,” “focus on interests not positions,” and “know your BATNA” all assume that individuals within conflict situations should focus on the consequences of choices and actions for themselves and their positions (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991). As Sally Engle Merry writes, the assumed disputant in predominant mediation models is autonomous, legally constituted self-defined in important ways by the relationship between the individual and the state. The self is a legally privileged entity to whom the courts represent one recourse, if difficult and incendiary to the other party, for the protection of that self. These rights take precedence over obligations to others except when the others are intimates....The self is an individual, endowed with rights which the state protects, and insofar as possible, self-reliant and autonomous. The self-respecting person is one who stands up for these rights and resists exploitation and abuse from others. (Merry, 1987) Within this paradigm the legal model of a bargain or contract between two individuals is positioned as the norm. The C-Mode demands a movement away from this individualistic practice’s focus and toward a focus on the individuals involved attempting to resolve conflict as a group enterprise. This group orientation would necessarily affect most of the major aspects of a process, including: • The abandonment of language of “parties” and “disputants”; • The expressed orienting of individuals involved in the conflict toward the reality that this process involves making a decision together, and as such a recognition that they are in a group undertaking which places certain demands on them as individuals in order to be successful; • A more explicit focus on strategies of intervention that create an environment where face-to-face communication between individuals is facilitated and encouraged, as opposed to a tripartite structure in which dialogue occurs through an intervenor; and • The training of intervenors in group dynamics and group decision-making so that they are more attuned to signposts within the process that highlight particular group achievements or needs. This group orientation is also reflected in how the participants in CFCR are organized and labeled. CFCR is structured around two types of participants: • • The Moderator: “The Moderator” is the term used in CFCR for the intervenor in a conflict situation. The term is used to connote the main roles associated with the moderator: ! Keeping the process moving; ! Helping with the identification and solidification of points of unity; and ! Constructing a substantive framework in which values of sharing and unity building are expressed. The Consulting Group: “The Consulting Group” is the term used in CFCR for all of the individuals involved in a conflict situation and who are part of the resolution process. The emphasis on the group is meant to encourage the collective group to take on decision-making tasks and to reinforce the sense of connectedness and unity among the members. The consulting group is: ! The decision-making body; and ! Has full decision-making authority. This language reflects a conscious choice to focus attention on the group decisionmaking aspects of conflict resolution. It is also meant to breakdown processes of labeling and identification that highlight themes of opposition and privilege existing between the parties in the state of conflict. It should be noted that many processes would imply the necessity for a change in language and the organization of the participants in the process. For example, using the categories of transformative mediation, the language and structuring of participation of problem-solving mediation embodies the “individualist worldview”, and as such in some respects could be said to be counter-intuitive to the “relational worldview”. In the culture of dispute resolution practice, however, our observation has been that language reflecting an individualist worldview often permeates far beyond the confines of a process, such as problem-solving mediation, which explicitly reflects that worldview.9 CFCR tries to break this tendency by clearly articulating a language and structure that moves beyond a party-party bias. The “Rhythm” of CFCR—Beginning and Ending with Unity 9 For example, in transformative mediation a party-party language and structure sometimes continues to be employed. As an example, see the description of transformative mediation in The Promise of Mediation. The C-Mode suggests that conflict-resolution processes should begin and end with unity. In other words, a process should begin by identifying a point of unity between the participants. It should also be designed to multiply and consciously acknowledge the multiplication of these points of unity as the process proceeds. The assumption is that as points of unity are multiplied and as participants gain an understanding of the levels of unity that have been achieved, they will find it easier to reach final distributive outcomes, and the degree of active intervention necessary to achieve these outcomes will gradually lessen. A simple pictorial image of the idea of conflict-resolution processes as expanding points of unity is as follows: Pool of Information and Possible Outcomes Pool of Information and Possible Outcomes Consulting Group Searches for Points of Unity Mediator Distills Information and Possible Outcomes Moderator Assists the Consulting Group in its Search for Points of Unity Expanding Points of Unity Lay Foundation for Unified Decision(s) and Resolution of Conflict Final Decision Results from Successful Distillation Figure 1. Problem Solving Mediation Figure 2. Conflict-Free Conflict Resolution Implicit within this model is the idea that unity cannot be built upon a foundation of conflict but rather must find its roots within acknowledgement of some point of identification and harmony, no matter how remote and minimal that point might be. In terms of process design, this suggests that there might be merit in engaging participants from the outset of the process in identifying a common starting point. Potentially, this would be distinguished from the many models of mediation that structure the opening of processes around a focus on what is driving the conflict—the typically competing understandings of the facts and events that brought the participants to the mediation. THE STRUCTURE OF CFCR—THE THREE COMPONENTS CFCR consists of three components: Component 1: Forming a Unity of Purpose Component 2: Consultative Discourse Component 3: Solidification CFCR applications and methodologies thus far have tended to perceive these three components as stages within the process, with a general movement from forming a unity of purpose through consultative discourse and ending with solidification. This article will similarly describe CFCR in these relatively sequential terms, primarily, because a sequential description is particularly helpful for comparative purposes. A note of caution, however, is that a dynamic and cyclical interplay often takes place among the various components—particularly forming a unity of purpose and consultative discourse. Later articles on the CFCR process will explore these advanced practice dynamics. 1. Forming a Unity of Purpose Forming a unity of purpose is a focal point of the CFCR process and the aspect of the process that most clearly separates it from traditional mediation models. In some respects this component may be thought of as analogous to the beginning stages in mediation processes. The goal of forming a unity of purpose is to create a framework that assists participants to seek out points of unity and establishes an initial foundation of unity from which the process can proceed. In CFCR, this framework is established through presentation (in context-sensitive form) of the developmental model of conflict resolution. For example, in a micro dispute, the moderator might present the process to the participants by sharing with them a context-appropriate version of the developmental model. By doing so, presentation of the conflict resolution process as a unity-building process will become explicit, and participants will also be challenged to reflect on their own behaviors and worldview and how these affect the process. In a macro dispute such a presentation may be very different, involving many interventions, workshops, and sessions aimed at bringing the participants together for consultation within a certain degree of shared orientation to the conflict before them and the challenge it represents, as well as orienting them with a language of unity and explaining how it might be instrumental to resolution and also to the substantive values and outcomes that this process seeks. The offering of a substantive framework, such as a version of the developmental model, early in the process is important for a number of reasons. First, it offers a common framework within which the parties can operate. This common framework has both formal and substantive implications for their choices and behaviors within the process. Second, it forms a template emphasizing unity to which the participants can be reoriented as challenges and obstacles arise in the process. Third, it forms a starting point of unity around which the parties can operate. Fourth, it encourages critical self-reflection by the participants about their role in the conflict. This substantive component is clearly educative, but it is not intended to be a didactic process taking the form of a seminar or lecture. Rather, it is to be structured around the idea that there are different approaches to conflict resolution and that these approaches have foundations in the general categories of worldviews. This substantive component could be referred to as an element of worldview self-education and group orientation. Presenting the developmental model to the consulting group is, in essence, placing a mirror before the participants whereby they choose to objectively analyze their own worldview as reflected in a developmental mirror. The presentation of the model should be such that the participants are drawn into contemplation of what process, methods, personal choices, and behaviors would lead to the most satisfactory resolution for all concerned. If all participants are prepared to commit to CFCR as a C-Mode process, then the process continues beyond the first stage. If they are not prepared to continue, then the process ends at that point. In some respects, this first stage of CFCR, especially as it has been utilized in post conflict societies such as the EFP project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reflects research regarding the place of “superordinate goals” in the reduction of conflict. The idea of a “superordinate goal” as “goals which are compelling and highly appealing to members of two or more groups in conflict but which cannot be attained by the resources and energies of the groups separately” (Sherif, 1958) is somewhat parallel to that of “forming a unity of purpose”. Just as Sherif demonstrated that the introduction of superordinate goals was “effective in reducing intergroup conflict” by encouraging tendencies towards cooperation, reducing friction, and unfavourable stereotypes, (Sherif, 1958) in CFCR “forming a unity of purpose” is designed to focus the participants on what they share, as a starting point for encouraging co-operative behavior and a group identity An additional crucial aspect of “forming a unity of purpose” is clarifying the roles and responsibilities within the process. There are two actors in CFCR—the Moderator and the Consulting Group. CFCR is analogous to mediation in that it can be practiced through a third-party intervenor who does not have decision-making authority. However, there are two main differences in role definition. First, the prime objective of the moderator in CFCR is to assist the participants to recognize the points of unity that are emerging between them and to assist individuals to build upon these. A good analogue may be found with transformative mediation. While transformative mediators assist the parties in the traditional ways that problem-solving mediators do—organizing the facts, exploring options, keeping the process moving— they also seek out opportunities for recognition and empowerment between the parties and focus attention on those as they occur. Similarly, a moderator offers many of the traditional forms of assistance that a mediator does, but the moderator primarily focuses on making conscious the underlying foundation of unity between the parties. The moderator, using a variety of techniques, does this within a process that is framed by a developmental model and leads toward the creation of unity. Second, the role of moderator can only be understood by clarifying the unique way in which the participants in a conflict are positioned in relation to each other in CFCR. It is counterintuitive for a process aimed at creating unity to structure itself primarily around the idea of distinct and conflicted autonomous entities. Reflecting the idea that conflict resolution can effectively be thought of as a group decision-making process, CFCR positions the participants as part of a conjoined “consulting group” engaged in a collective enterprise to reach the best possible outcome to the situation that has brought them to the process in the first place. The moderator is separate and distinct from the group but has the role of assisting the group in moving through the stages of the process, reorienting them to the C-Mode framework, and addressing issues of group dynamics as they arise that might require some assistance and input. These two aspects of the moderator’s role are obviously interrelated. As the moderator reinforces points of unity, he or she also intends to strengthen and improve the group dynamics, with the hope of making the group more autonomous and empowered. Similarly, the process of moderator assisting the consulting group as issues arise, would empower the group and help it to identify and reach and points of unity as they occur. Beyond the worldview self-education and the introduction of the very distinct roles and responsibilities of the moderator and the consulting group, the purposes and elements of the opening phase of CFCR are analogous to mediation. The moderator will discuss necessary issues of confidentiality, timing, and their own impartiality. Also, where appropriate, he or she might stress the voluntary nature of the process and the role of selfdetermination in its continuation. In addition to opening the process through structuring a framework for substantive engagement, opportunities for the participants to prepare for the process are also instrumental to forming a unity of purpose. The top-heavy nature of CFCR, and in particular the challenge that is placed before the consulting group to operate according to the requisites of the C-Mode is evidence of the general orientation of CFCR to conflict resolution as a creative and educative process, as opposed to being primarily conceived of as a set of techniques and skills. It also highlights that CFCR is at least partially in harmony with approaches to conflict resolution that stress the potential for participation to be a source of change, transformation, healing, and relationship building. Consistent with this is the reality that participation in a voluntary conflict-resolution process—whether it be mediation or CFCR—often demands a lot of individuals and places considerable expectations on them. These expectations concern not only praxis but also the modes of expression of emotions, attitudes toward the sharing of information, and a good-faith intention to work in a cordial manner with the other participants. In CFCR, the demands on participants are arguably even greater. The introduction of an external model to frame the conflict and the likely challenges the participants’ worldviews impose on them require a considerable degree of commitment and engagement, which is indeed demanding. In CFCR, participants are usually offered time and space to prepare to meet these demands of the process. This preparation can take two forms: individual or group, and typically opportunities for both forms will be offered. The prime purpose in offering space for individual preparation is for participants to have the opportunity to internalize the C-Mode and to reflect on how it will guide their participation in the process. The secondary purpose is more traditional, to ensure that the information, documents, potential additional parties, and other relevant factual material are all properly accessible. The role of the moderator in individual preparation is minimal, beyond explaining that space and time for this preparation exists and encouraging the consulting group to reach agreement about whether such time and space for preparation should be allocated. There are benefits to placing preparation before the consulting group as an issue to be decided. For the group, it is an opportunity to make a group decision (typically their first one) about an issue that is dissociated from the conflict which brought them to the process. As such, there is the potential for the group to achieve an initial point of unity that can be built upon later, without having to engage the entrenched issues that are intimate to the conflict. For the moderator, placing the issue of preparation before the group allows the moderator to observe the individual and group dynamics in play and to gain some early insights that might be of assistance later in the process. The second form of preparation is group preparation. This allows the group to internalize the notion that all are involved in a group decision-making exercise, which has a specific quality separate from individual decision-making. Group preparation is highly contextually bound. In a marriage and divorce context, group preparation is often facilitated through the wide and substantive body of shared experiences among the members of the group. In other micro contexts, group preparation may be effected by a simple group task or undertaking. In larger multiparty disputes, preparation may require a multiplicity of activities in a range of forums that gradually prepare the participants to come together as a group to consult on the core issues at the heart of the conflict. Preparation may also be thought of as an adjunct to the worldview self-education of the opening by reiterating to the participants that when they begin to resolve the conflict, they are engaging in a task that is personally challenging and demanding. It will be more satisfactory if they are more comfortable with the process and feel that they have had the opportunity to make it their own. Preparation stages are intended to add to this sense of empowerment and ownership, and to allow participants to see if they can truly envision themselves within the process. 2. Consultative Discourse The second component of CFCR occurs when the consulting group, aided by the moderator, begins to explore facts and views concerning the dispute. This component, called consultative discourse, is broadly analogous to particular steps in the mediation process when discussion of the facts and brainstorming for solutions occurs. It is the stage where the participants engage directly with one another and seek out pathways to an outcome. At the same time, however, there are significant differences between this stage of CFCR and the analogous stages of mediation. As in mediation, the moderator will typically invite the members of the consulting group to begin the process by telling their story—recounting what has occurred that has resulted in their being present today. Each member of the consulting group is invited to tell his or her story. The central role of the moderator during this process of story telling and the resulting dialogue among members of the consulting group is to guide the construction of a “Decision-Making Box” (DMB) within which final decisions and outcomes might be made. A DMB is made up of four types of unity and sharing that the moderator should be working to build throughout the process: common approach, common decisions, common identification, and common story. Decision-Making Box Common Story (Creation of a common story by the group) Common Approach (Common focus on worldview of unity) Common Identification (With group) Common Decisions (Small decisions made by the group) “Common Approach” refers to a shared conscious focus on trying to engage in a unityoriented process of decision making and conflict resolution. This approach is offered to the participants in Stage 1 though the presentation of the themes of worldview, conflict, and the developmental framework. By proceeding with the process, the participants are urged and helped to adopt a unity-centered framework within which to try to think about and analyze their conflict. The role of the moderator throughout the process—and in particular during consultation—is to keep this framework at the forefront of the group’s consciousness, reminding the group that it is their choice to proceed through a particular unity-orientation and reiterating the requisites of such an orientation as the process continues and challenges arise. One tool the moderator will use to deepen understanding of the common approach throughout the process is that of reorientation. By offering a substantive framework for conflict resolution early in the process—and in particular the theme of worldview—the moderator has constructed a template that can be returned to later in the process when challenges arise. At various points in the process, the moderator can remind the consulting group of the framework, seek out opportunities to deepen understanding of the C-Mode, or challenge the participants to think about how their own behaviors and choices reflect the C-Mode. Through such reorienting to the worldview of unity and the developmental ideas that underlie it, impasses can be broken, the consulting group kept on track, and their understanding of unity and how it manifests itself in their own life circumstances better understood. “Common Decisions” refers to how small achievements and decisions are treated during the process. In any process of conflict resolution, many small decisions and understandings are achieved on the pathway to a final resolution. In CFCR, these small decisions and understandings are treated as small points of unity established between the members of the consulting group that can be used to reinforce a sense of mutual interdependence within the process, progress, and their ability to work together on the more difficult questions yet to come. As such, throughout the process the moderator should take opportunities to make the consulting group aware of any incremental achievements and how far they have come in making decisions that might ultimately contribute to a positive final outcome. There is a similar focus in transformative mediation, where mediators endeavor to make conscious points of recognition achieved between the parties, and to use techniques such as reframing to help make this recognition explicit to parties. Such moments of recognition form a type of shared decision or understanding that a moderator in CFCR should work toward and highlight. In addition, the moderator should, as much as reasonably possible, reinforce in the consulting group the sense that they are moving through a series of small successes (i.e., reaching points of unity) on the pathway to dealing with issues of final outcomes. This is done by not only highlighting points of recognition but also making conscious for the consulting group any decisions or understandings they make along the way about a range of issues—including, for example, the facts of the conflict, the process they are engaged in, the worldview framework that has been offered, and the challenges and issues before them. “Common Identification” refers to the identification of the participants with the consulting group and with the group decision-making tasks before them. In some respects, this might be considered one of the most challenging aspects of the process— one that has not received significant attention in conflict-resolution literature. In any process where decision-making power rests with the individuals who are a part of the dispute, the reality is that individuals who are in a state of tension must seek out a mutual solution and make final decisions together. The collective decision-making that the process requires can be facilitated through the participants being conscious that they are engaged in a group decision-making exercise. As well, by recognizing that there are specific dynamics that may assist or hinder successful collective decision-making, participants are empowered to take responsibility for moving the process along. There are a number of techniques that might be used in CFCR to reinforce common identification. A foundation for shared identification is the abandonment of the trappings of adversarialism that often seep into mediation processes—such as a language of disputants and factions. At the same time, a moderator will offer explicit group-oriented language (e.g., “consulting group”) to reinforce the identification process. Group preparation early in the process will mirror this shift in language and help participants engage as a group. During the consultation stage, a number of opportunities will arise for the moderator to help the consulting group develop identification by encouraging reflection on the group’s level of functioning, how group dynamics might be improved, and reorienting participants to the group decision-making tasks that lie before them. The purpose of such group identification is that it consciously exposes participants to constructive attempts at working together, even in situations of high tension where strong differences may exist among those involved. Group identification also can help facilitate the making of small decisions by imparting a sense of a positive dynamic of working together, which may often be in contrast to how the interactions between the participants were perceived prior to the process. “Common Story” refers to the process of sharing perceptions of the facts of the dispute by the members of the consulting group and the constructing of a common understanding of the situation around those perceptions and facts. This process happens gradually throughout the consultation stage. First, all participants in the consulting group are given an opportunity to share their perception and understanding of the dispute and what is at stake for them and each other. As the consulting group begins to engage with one another around their respective stories, the moderator will take the opportunity to help highlight the unifying elements in the perceptions and stories, describing how those may be built upon. These unifying elements become the foundation for a “shared story” through which the remaining differences can begin to be engaged with and understood. A number of techniques may be used in helping construct the shared story, none of which are unique to CFCR. The constructing of a shared story is a common element of many processes and has parallels to methodologies such as that of managing the “difficult conversation” (Stone et al., 2003). Indeed, some processes, such as narrative mediation, emphasize the process of story telling itself as a key to resolution—narrative construction serving as a bridging mechanism to provide new insights and understandings to the participants (Winslade and Monk, 2000). Many of the techniques used in these other processes and contexts can aid the shared story process—including reframing, seeking out opportunities for recognition, and constructing the third story. In CFCR, additional emphasis is placed on the task of constructing a shared story as a core goal toward which the consulting group works. A number of valuable outcomes can result from making this explicit. If the group is able to function relatively harmoniously, group decision-making capacities and sense of empowerment may be enhanced. If the group is unable to function harmoniously, the moderator will gain valuable insights into the fault lines that have to be overcome if resolution is going to emerge. As well, while it may be disempowering for the participants if the process of constructing a shared story becomes especially acrimonious, it may also provide an opportunity to clarify the importance of challenging themselves and engaging with their own worldviews and the related attitudes and behaviors, if they want to reach an outcome in this forum. The construction of the DMB provides a framework within which the consulting group can make final decisions and outcomes. By emphasizing the four commonalities built through the process, the aim is to create conditions and consciousness of the types of interrelatedness and unity that characterize the specific circumstances of the participants. Through these conditions and consciousness of unity, the hope is that a final outcome will become possible because of the reservoir of understanding and goodwill that have been built up throughout the process. As well, a significant amount of learning about one’s own worldview, the process of building unity, and the nature of conflict may be gained that might have proactive effects into the future. CFCR’s emphasis on constructing the DMB often leads to a different rhythm than in problem-solving mediation. Through reorienting, highlighting points of unity, giving room for preparation, and taking opportunities to deepen group dynamics and understanding, considerable time is spent on the worldview orientations and relational dynamics of the participants. At the same time, many of the usual activities that a mediator undertakes will also be done by a moderator. A moderator, however, will often help organize information, identify core issues, encourage brainstorming, or use particular tactics to move the process along. In the event that agreement is not reached during consultative discourse, the process ends—just as it would in mediation. The only feature particular to CFCR in ending a process is that the moderator will take the opportunity in making closing comments to reiterate and summarize the points of unity that have been achieved, and offer reflection on how these points of unity may be built on at a later date. Similar to mediation, a moderator may also leave the door open to returning to the process if the participants feel it may be of use at a later date, as well as indicate the other avenues of resolution that are open to the participants. 3. Solidification Solidification, the third component of CFCR, refers to post-decision actions. The purpose of solidification is to focus attention on the issue of the implementation of decisions and evaluation of their effectiveness. It is not unusual for decisions to break down when the participants try to implement them. For CFCR, however, the issue of post-decision actions is beyond simply clarifying agreements about details of implementation. In CFCR there may be appropriate contexts where a moderator may encourage the members of the consulting group to consider returning to meet with the moderator. The purpose of this meeting is not to re-open the agreement—indeed this would introduce a degree of uncertainty into the process that is bound to undermine the agreement itself, as well as having legal and other complexities and problems. Rather, the “Solidification” process offers to participants the opportunity to view their engagement in CFCR as an occasion for developing proactive attitudes and skill-sets for managing and responding to conflict within the framework of a unity-based worldview in their own lives. The pillar of CFCR is a commitment to unity-based worldviews as a key force in creating a culture where the frequency and degree of conflict is minimized. Furthermore, discussion and exploration of this worldview outside the context of a specific conflict, alone or as a group, are all agents of effecting this broader cultural change. Such a vision of “open-door” conflict resolution is clearly not going to be appropriate or desired in certain circumstances. However, as a matter of general policy for community justice centers and conflict resolution professionals, the vision of integrating opportunities for on-going training and reflection into prevention and intervention models is potentially a good one. It may spread awareness of the benefits of consensual processes more concretely into the culture at large and maximize the possibilities that situations which might have once been referred to intervention will instead be wholly selfdetermined and self-managed. CFCR IN PRACTICE – ANECDOTES AND APPLICATIONS CFCR has been primarily applied on a small scale in three contexts: marriage and family conflicts; conflicts within schools; and management and administration conflicts in businesses and organizations. As well, CFCR is the foundation for one major peacebuilding and social integration initiative in a post-conflict society. The following examples and anecdotes of the application of CFCR primarily emphasize how the first component of CFCR is utilized. In particular, the role of worldview and the educative dimension of CFCR become clear. (a) The Case of Sandra and Bill Sandra and Bill had been married for 15 years and had two children.10 The couple sought conflict resolution assistance after being separated for a few years. Their purpose in seeking assistance was with respect to their conflicted decision-making efforts 10 Names and some details of the case studies “The Case of Sandra and Bill” and “The Dysfunctional Board” have been altered for confidentiality purposes. concerning their children in the context of being separated as marriage partners. Bill and Sandra have always had very different communication and decision-making styles. Bill was, in many respects, a child who never grew up. He emphasized freedom, a fun-loving life, and advocated that the children be free to try anything. This orientation was also reflected in his work as a stockbroker, where he thrived on the competition and excitement of the lifestyle that went along with it. Sandra, on the other hand, was more reserved, and emphasized discipline, order, and hard work. She was involved in all aspects of her children’s lives, and felt that some degree of structure and order was needed. Whenever Sandra and Bill tried to make decisions regarding their children, the end result would often be a fight, with negative impact on them and their children. For example, Bill’s idea of showing love for his children was to give them what they wanted and take them to “fun activities”, which usually meant several hours or days of undisciplined indulgence in shopping, eating, and television watching. Sandra, however, considered this approach to parenting to be unhealthy and felt that Bill should set an example of a mature person capable of postponing his desires. She felt children needed to emulate and learn these things from their father. Bill, however, didn’t like to be such a “heavy” and “boring” father. This divergence of view almost always resulted in a conflict between the parents and put the children in a “no win” situation. Three two-hour sessions were held with Bill and Sandra. The aim of the first session was to use the developmental model of conflict resolution to help Bill and Sandra see how their contrasting parental styles were rooted in the fact that their respective worldviews were different. About one hour was spent presenting and applying the developmental model to their marital context. Bill and Sandra immediately began to recognize and acknowledge that the problems they were having with decision-making now, mirrored the problems they used to have in their marriage. At the root of these problems was that they had different worldviews that resulted in contrasting lifestyles as well as parenting styles. The introduction of the developmental model provided Bill and Sandra with an opportunity to reflect on their own worldview and its impact on their thoughts, feelings, decisions, and behaviors. This heightened self-awareness made them also more able to understand where the other was coming from. It also allowed them to distance themselves from the difficult emotions of the past that often complicated any decision-making process. The first session ended with Bill and Sandra having the task of articulating how they felt mutual decisions concerning the children could best be made. When they reported back for the second session, Bill was somewhat upset because he realized that his approach was not appropriate for the children, but at the same time did not think that Sandra’s approach was appropriate either and thought her approach also had some problems. However, he could not articulate his thoughts clearly. Sandra, on her part felt that she has been too strict and needed to change her decision-making approach, but did not know how this could be done. In essence, they both stated that they did not know what a better decision-making process would look like. These statements became key points of the first agreement (the first points of unity) around which the remaining sessions revolved. Bill and Sandra engaged each other on trying to design how they could amicably make decisions. Ultimately, they decided that whenever one of them was uncomfortable with a proposed activity, Bill, Sandra, and the children (who were 8 and 11 years respectively) would sit down together to discuss the issue in the context of guidelines of C-Mode decision-making that they learned during their CFCR sessions. This satisfied Bill’s desire for the children to lead the process, and it also provided a forum for Sandra to state her legitimate concerns. In the meeting of all of them, decisions would be made together. What this anecdote highlights is that even in a micro-conflict, the introduction of the developmental model is the key component for both prevention of conflicts and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, when they are present. The worldview awareness component of CFCR has a mirror like effect – by providing developmental categories of worldview, CFCR makes the participants conscious of their respective worldviews and in doing so, it helps them to take a more analytical perspective on both their own and others’ behavior. This often allows a degree of recognition and commitment necessary for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The worldview awareness is also a form of unitybuilding, because it engages all participants in working within a common frame of reference. (b) The Dysfunctional Board A second context in which CFCR has been used is in a number of corporations and nongovernmental organizations in Europe and Japan. The primary reason CFCR was employed in these contexts was to help decrease the levels of interpersonal conflict occurring within decision-making organs of these institutions. We have generally found that CFCR can be particularly appropriate in helping resolve conflicts and structure effective decision-making processes at the management and executive level. One reason for this is that the introduction of critical self reflection along the axis of worldview has proven to be an excellent device for key decision-makers to analyze their own styles and approaches to decision-making, as well as the prevailing culture and modus operandi within their organization. The Board of Directors of an NGO from a small Western European country requested assistance to resolve long term dysfunction within its key decision-making body. The underlying conflict concerned the process and style of decision-making that should be used by the Board. This underlying conflict manifested itself in small disputes over issues which required decisions, and ultimately created a condition of paralysis within the Board. The organization simply could not make key decisions to the detriment of its nationwide membership. The chairman of the Board, motivated by goals of efficiency and effectiveness, conducted the meetings of the Board by deciding the agenda of the meetings, limiting the contributions of the members, directing the discussion in the direction he thought appropriate, and disregarding views of others, as long as he could muster a simple majority for the issues at hand. In his approach he was forceful, used his considerable financial success as a validation of his approach, and basically considered the work of this humanitarian and progressive organization as yet another of his many business enterprises that he administered. The secretary of the Board, a well-respected academic, held diametrically opposite views on decision-making to those of the chairman. She thought that the meetings should have as little interference from the chair as possible, that limitations on the length of presentations by the members of the Board was a violation of their rights, and that the “best ideas” should prevail. She was very concerned that the Board members voted against her ideas more than they did against the ideas of the chairman. The chairman and the secretary had their own subgroup of supporters on the Board and consequently the Board was divided into three factions: the chairman and his followers, the secretary and her supporters, and a few others who called themselves “the free agents”. The primary preoccupation of the Board members seemed to revolve around this fractious relationship. The decisions were not made on their merits, but rather they were made with the aim of maintaining a balance, so that neither side would feel either victorious or defeated. The lofty vision and objectives of the organization remained separate from the actual process of decision-making by the Board. There was no congruency between the two. Hence there was both inner conflict and interpersonal conflict among the Board members. Eventually, the Board members agreed to engage in a three-day intensive CFCR process. The goal was to spend the bulk of the time trying to discover the underlying causes for their decision-making paralysis. Once that was accomplished, they also planned to use their new insights to work through the current specific conflicts which they had been unable to resolve. This three-day process combined elements of the CFCR training, actual examples of dispute resolution using CFCR approach, and addressing specific conflicts that had plagued the Board over the years. Using a training modality, the session began with a presentation on the relationship between worldviews and decision-making. The presentation was received with a considerable amount of resistance on the part of the chairman who saw it as an attack on his integrity. Likewise, the secretary felt that her approach was being judged as a powerstruggle, while it was, in her opinion, the most democratic and, therefore, the most progressive approach to decision making. As the resistance of the Chairman and the Secretary continued to grow, and the divisive patterns of the Board become apparent, it was decided a break was needed to give each member of the Board the individual task of considering their respective personal worldview and its impact on the overall decisionmaking process of the Board. The aim of this strategy was threefold. First, to encourage the participants to diagnose their own approach to decision-making within the parameters of their respective worldviews. Second, each Board member was to determine in which direction he or she desired the Board’s decision-making to proceed. Third, the intention was to break the focus from the divide between the Chairman and Secretary by engaging all Board members in reflection on their own worldviews and approaches to decision making as well as identifying their aspirations for the Board as opposed to the personalities which sit on it. Once we reconvened, both the chairman and the secretary continued their protest and tried to gather their supporters to reject the CFCR approach. However, the majority of the Board members had turned their attention to an analysis of the Board’s functioning and where they wished to see it go. One of the Board members described their collective dilemma by stating: “CFCR hasn’t said anything new, but it has given words to issues that we were always concerned about but could not easily explain.” The language of the developmental model had empowered other members of the Board to begin to articulate, in a non-confrontational matter, the dysfunction of the Board. The reactions of the Chair and the Secretary were mixed as the focus shifted away from both of them. The chairman agreed to follow the suggestions of his fellow Board members. However, the secretary pronounced the whole thing as utopian and unrealistic and left the meeting. The Board was now faced with a choice – whether to continue in the absence of the Secretary or to end the process. It was suggested that the Board ask themselves two questions: first, how would they have dealt with this conflict in the past; and second, how could they deal with it in the C-Mode. The Board quickly agreed that in the past they would have carried on without the Secretary or the Chairman. They also concluded, after some discussion, that in order to build unity within their Board, it was important that they make efforts to bring the Secretary back into the process. They decided that two members would approach the Secretary and invite her back into the process. The Secretary did return, and from this point on the process followed a recurring dynamic. Time would be spent developing a common understanding of what a C-Mode decision-making process might involve for the Board. The Board would then attempt to address and resolve a long-standing specific conflict on their agenda using their understanding of the C-Mode. When they would stumble upon a roadblock, the moderator would become more involved, helping them see how the C-Mode might apply to that conflict. Otherwise, the moderator would tend to stay predominately in the background. In a follow-up communication with the organization, it was clear that change was underway, but it was slow. The Board, for the first time in years had made a decision at its annual meeting to change its officers. Both the Chair and the Secretary were replaced. As well, the Board stated that they were continuing to use the language of CFCR in their decision-making processes. The greatest benefits of this experience were that they now had a common language to use when conflicts arose, as well as a shared understanding of the dynamics of their dysfunction, both of which allowed them to approach their conflicts as opportunities to further educate themselves as a decision-making body. (c) Education for Peace In September 1999 the authors were invited to hold a three-day CFCR workshop in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Approximately 50 individuals, comprised of leading journalists, mid-level government officials and international community agencies in BiH participated in the meeting. Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time was gradually emerging from the ruins of war and the participants who were from all three BiH ethnic groups (Bosniak, Serb, and Croat) were extremely fearful and suspicious of one another. They would not even agree to stay in the same hotel at night. By the end of the three days there was a demonstrable change in the atmosphere amongst the participants, indicating that some success had been achieved by the workshop. Much of the fear and suspicion had been replaced by a common focus on moving their nation forward. As a result of this workshop, we received an invitation from the Minister of Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation to introduce a program based on the principles of CFCR into BiH schools. What emerged was a multi-year, large-scale program called Education for Peace which held the goal of promoting the re-integration of the school system, and re-uniting the nation’s young people. The pilot project took place in six BiH schools two schools in each region where the population reflected the dominant ethnicity of one of the ethnic groups. The six schools (three primary and three secondary) had a total population of approximately 6000 students, 10,000 parents, and 400 teachers and school staff. The structure and rationale of the EFP program was based on the CFCR model with the goal of building patterns of unity in diversity amongst the members of the major ethnic groups. The core features of the program were 1. The central pivot of the program was focused on worldview transformation. However, the terminology used to describe worldviews was adapted to take into account a larger group process, as well as the particular dynamics of a postconflict society. Three major categories of worldview ― Survival-Based (authoritarian), Identity-Based (power struggle) and Unity-Based (consultative and integrative) ― were identified as lying at the foundation of models of social order and social relations. 2. It was essential that the entire school communities be involved, including all staff and students. The rationale for this was that a unity-building process needed to occur within and between these school communities, and therefore inclusiveness was essential. This resulted in various levels of involvement. Core groups of teachers trained intensively in the CFCR process were developed in each school. These teachers would help facilitate a worldview transformation process – akin to the first stage of CFCR – in all of the teachers and staff. Then building on local knowledge and context, a macro-curriculum for use within the schools would be developed. This macro-curriculum would emphasize and encourage the teaching of every subject within the school through a framework of unity, equality, and peace. 3. This macro-curriculum would be based on core principles of peace ― there is one human race, the oneness of humanity is expressed in diversity, and the singular challenge before humanity is to maintain its oneness and strengthen its diversity without resort to violence ― and would be applied in schools from different regions of the country representing the three main ethnic populations. 4. Regional and National “Peace Events” would be held periodically to provide a forum through which the students could demonstrate, often through the arts, their new understandings of concepts such as unity, peace, and equality, and how they apply to their own lives and their relations with members of other groups. 5. Groups of students within each of the schools would also be trained to resolve disputes through CFCR. The success of the pilot project resulted in the government of BiH requesting that the program be expanded, and if possible, be introduced to all schools in BiH thereby reaching approximately 800,000 students. Currently the program is being implemented in an additional 102 BiH schools engaging a student population of about 80,000. The goal is to gradually integrate the program within every BiH school. EFP is not unique in the sense that there are many programs and organizations which have also focused on building peaceful relations amongst youth in conflict or postconflict societies. Further, there are many important examples of organizations which pioneer transformative and co-operative approaches to inter-group conflict and peacebuilding. For example, there are some parallels between EFP and organizations such as Search for Common Ground which has as its goal “to transform the way communities and societies view and deal with their differences”.11 CFCR, as evidenced in its role in the EFP program, potentially makes a twofold contribution to efforts at peacebuilding in post-conflict societies. First, it provides a clearly articulated language and framework— that of worldview and the developmental model of conflict resolution—which, as EFP demonstrates, is rather easily grasped, engaged, and implemented by members of groups or communities where there has been violence. Further, the benefit of framing the language in terms of worldview is that it inevitably encourages an integrative approach. Using the same set of tools, individuals can engage in self-analysis, groups can analyze their collective functioning, and inter-group relations can be dissected. This allows for participants to see the connections and relate between their inner conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, and intergroup conflicts, as well as understand that finding resolutions to any of these conflicts requires to some degree, addressing each of them. Second, CFCR in emphasizing unity, and articulating an understanding and definition of conflict which revolves around the reality of unity, goes farther then many other approaches in challenging the notions of the inevitability and normalcy of conflict. While CFCR is not averse to the prevailing and progressive notion that conflict can be transformed into a positive and life-altering force, CFCR further emphasizes the endresult of such transformation: the creation of patterns of unity in diversity. As a result, the orientation of CFCR is distinct from the outset. Participants are more focused on talking about and examining unity, and then exploring their conflicts through the lens of unity. All these processes are integral aspects of the EFP program. LESSONS AND CHALLENGES These examples of CFCR in practice have highlighted challenges that future CFCR practice and theory must increasingly address. First, it has become evident that the CFCR model has potential as both an ADR process, and as a framework for peace-building and peace education programs. As well, CFCR clearly provides a distinct foundation for systems design within institutions and organizations, as well as a training model for issues of team building, diversity, and group decision-making. The developmental model of conflict resolution, because it targets the worldview and attitudinal dimension of conflict, also translates into a framework for addressing issues of cultural change and development within institutions. Such systems often involve CFCR permeating the institutional culture in a variety of 11 For information about Search for Common Grounds see: http://www.sfcg.org/ ways ranging from intervention models to particular programs of training, education, and professional development, as described in the examples above. Second, it has also become clear that the role of the moderator in CFCR is somewhat distinct from that of a mediator and requires different training models than those often employed for mediators. The main reason for this lies within the creative nature of the CFCR process, which demands that a moderator not be tied to particular steps or stages. For example, even the order of Component 1 and Component 2 will often not be sequential, but rather may need to be interwoven. Sometimes consultative discourse will occur at the very beginning, with the two components of “forming a unity of purpose” and “consultative discourse” interacting throughout the process. The specific appearance and form of the process will vary based upon the context and character of the dispute, as well as the personality and approach of the moderator. The challenge which this poses is whether an efficient and effective CFCR training program can be developed, and whether the transferability of CFCR skills will be a significant obstacle to the widespread use of the process. To date, the first glimmerings of a rationalized training methodology have begun to appear. This methodology attempts to combine training in the skills and stages of CFCR with a reproduction, in a more comprehensive, sustained, and analytical manner, of the process of worldview selfeducation that is to occur for participants within the CFCR process. Third, it has become clear, as is true with most consensual processes, that CFCR is not suited for some types of conflicts. To date, however, no clear typology of when CFCR may or may not be appropriate has been developed. As the EFP example illustrates, the emphasis on “forming a unity of purpose” can be effective in reducing intergroup conflict. At the same time, however, raising questions of worldview and a process structure where there is an emphasis on group consultation may be inappropriate in certain cultural contexts or situations where there are particular histories or vulnerabilities among the participants. Further research into questions of culture, power, and CFCR will need to be done in future. The emergence of CFCR in the last decade illustrates that there remains significant room for experimentation with proactive and education-oriented conflict resolution processes. It also illustrates the benefits of cross-disciplinary scholarship in contributing to our understanding of conflict and how it might be resolved. CFCR has evolved to date through the combined efforts of lawyers, educators, psychiatrists, psychologists, and conflict-resolution professionals. The result is a process and theory of conflict resolution, which, though in its nascent stages, appear to offer some novel contributions to the field. The decision to articulate a description of CFCR at this time is motivated by a hope that more voices and insights will further contribute to a culture of dynamism and experimentation within the contemporary study and practice of conflict resolution. References Ackerman, Robert M. 2002. “Disputing Together: Conflict Resolution and the Search for Community.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 18, pp. 27–91. Avruch, Kevin, Peter W. Black, and Joseph A. Scimecca, eds. 1991. Conflict Resolution: CrossCultural Perspectives. NY: Greenwood Press. Baruch Bush, Robert A. and Joseph P. Folger. 1994. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Coleman, Peter T. and Beth Fisher-Yoshida. Undated. “Conflict Resolution at Multiple Levels across the Lifespan: The Work of the ICCCR.” <http://www.tc.columbia.edu/icccr/publicationsPC3.htm> Danesh, Hossain B. and Roshan Danesh. 2002a. “Consultative Conflict Resolution Model: Beyond Alternative Dispute-Resolution.” International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 17–33. _____. 2002b. “Has Conflict Resolution Grown Up? Toward a New Model of Decision Making and Conflict Resolution.” International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring/Summer, pp. 59–76. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books. Goldberg, Steven H. 1997. “‘Wait a Minute. This is Where I Came In.’ A Trial Lawyer’s Search for Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 1997, pp. 653–85. Goldberg, Stephen B. et al. 2003. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and Other Processes. 3rd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers. Jeong, Ho-Won. 2000. Peace and Conflict Studies: An Introduction. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1997. “When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals.” University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44, August, pp. 1871–933. Merry, Sally Engle. 1987. “Cultural Frameworks of Mediation.” PCR Occasional Paper Series, 1987-2. Cultural Aspects of Disputing. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa. Minow, Martha. 2002. “Education for Co-Existence” Isaac Marks Memorial Lecture. 44 Ariz. L. Rev. 1-29. Murray, John S. 1993. “Using Theory in Conflict Resolution Practice.” In Hugo Van Der Merwe and Dennis J. Sandole, eds. Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 222–31. Raiffa, Howard. 1991. The Art and Science of Negotiations. New York: Harvard University Press Scimecca, Joseph A. 1993. “Theory and Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Contradiction in Terms?” In Hugo Van Der Merwe and Dennis J. Sandole, eds. Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 211-221. Sherif, Muzafer. 1958. “Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63, pp. 349-356. Stone, Douglas et al. 1999. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. New York: Viking/Penguin. Winslade, John and Gerald Monk. 2000. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.