Peace Skills (Intro-24)

Some of the ideas that jumped out at me in the first 24 pages of Peace skills were the following:

 ---The self-fulfilling prophecy of attitude (p. 9)
             The authors speak about how the way we view conflict completely affects the way it plays its course. If we view conflict as negative, with only destructive capability, then it will be hard for anything constructive to come from it. But if we recognize that conflict is an ordinary part of human experience and like fire, contains tremendous potential for growth and creation of a better world, then it is likely that its power will be harnessed for positive change. We see what we want to see. In my own mind, the difference between these two perspectives is like the difference between a problem-oriented approach and a potential-oriented approach. In the former, one fixates on the knot, the obstacle, and is stuck pointing at this problem that he knows is there. In the latter, on asks the questions, "what could be happening here," "what can I learn from this experience," "what is the gift of this situation," and "in what ways might this situation lead me to an even bigger world of freedom, insight, clarity, and compassion?"

---Drawing on moral and spiritual resources (p. 8)
           The authors emphasize the importance of being in touch with one's spiritual resources as a mediator. I think this is essential. They also seem to imply that it is helpful if the whole process rests on such a foundation, that everyone draw on such resources, since so many people come some tradition that values reconciliation, justice, empowerment, and liberation. Though it seems powerful to try to draw on the inherent motive for these goals within all of the parties at hand (finding common values), I of course am curious what obstacles are common to this process. In our melting pot of different faith traditions, with fundamentalists of christianity, Buddhism, new-age-ism, atheism, materialism/secularism, etc, talking about all things 'spiritual' is a touchy subject. I like that the authors added the word 'moral' to describe these resources, as it is a less loaded term. But I am still curious how the world of spirituality, morality, and values is navigated in a heated large-scale situation, since in most professional settings, protestantized secularism is assumed to be the foundation of reality within which all discussions take place.

-Organizing conflicts based on Information, Resources, Relationships, Interests, Structures, and Values (p. 14)
             I personally found a lot of value in this framework, since it not only categorizes different elements to focus on in a conflict situation, but it also points out how some conflicts may be rooted in more superficial misalignment than others. For example, one conflict may only exist because certain people are lacking information on the matter, and the transformation process may only involve going so deep as to have everyone properly informed, making for a rather easy and quick movement into harmony. Deep-rooted value disagreements or structural frictions are way more embedded in the network of relationships at hand, and will require a lot more digging and time.
           
-Equalizing a power imbalance before entering mediation (p. 19)
             Though I deeply agree that a mediating process rests on the foundation of everyone being able to voice their concerns equally, I am curious about the practicality of this process. What I understand from the reading is that it is helpful to gather extra advocates to be in support of the weaker party, but I don't know how that would look. In a way it seems to me that a power imbalance would be a big theme in the mediation discussion itself, since power is so rooted in the structural system existent in the situation.

-Mediators as process advocates (p. 20)
             I really appreciated this clarification of the mediators role not as a contrived objectivity, but severely subjective, as all people in this world must be if they are honest with themselves. However, a mediators subjective role is as a process advocate. He or she can channel all of his/her genuine passion and care into the role of advocating for the process. In a way, this forces a mediator to be held accountable to a larger view of the situation, since it requires him to connect with his ultimate vision of harmonious humanity--to hold to a focus, but be flexible with the road of getting there. This also instill humility on the part of the mediator, since she must trust that the process of pursuing everyone's truths will ultimately lead to the unfolding of a better world, acknowledging that she doesn't know what path will take us there.