Читать книгу Mediation - Alain Lempereur - Страница 44

Pretending to ignore negative emotions is to risk an impasse or an explosion later on (Lempereur 2003b, 2014a). Therefore, sharing them can serve a constructive purpose in conflict resolution, especially when a good faith effort is made to express them with, and not against, the other. There is an emotional release that, once performed and received by the other (who shows empathy, if not sympathy), prepares to come to terms with rational arguments. The venting person can then turn to rational problem‐solving as the next step.

Yet, these toxic emotions – fear, sadness, anger, shame, etc. – when unmanaged, often damage relationships. Emotions can overwhelm not only those who experience them, but also those who are exposed to them: “You are not going to complain again …,” “Calm down!” In these examples, the listener reacts to emotions by refusing to acknowledge them, which can significantly exacerbate the expressed feelings. Or, the interlocutor can mirror these emotions (one's tears generate the other's tears) or transform them (one's fear provokes the other's anger). If the emotional spiral deepens, the parties can no longer focus effectively on the issues.

In particular, negative emotions nurture excessive aggression, whether they are unilateral or, most often, reciprocal. Aggression is communicated in writing (sending a certified mail to neighbors, former spouse, or associates; threatening e‐mail to multiple addressees) or orally (tone of voice, screaming) and is accentuated by word choice (irony, accusation, shaming, threat, insult), as well as body language and demeanor. The protagonists thus find themselves in an escalation that they no longer understand or fully control.

To stop this cycle, each party requires the first step from “the other.” They can all wait a long time like stone statues. In this blocked context, mediation is appropriate because an external third party, whom everyone agrees to meet, builds a bridge of “ceasefire” across the gap of negative emotions. This image of mediators with the white flag or blue helmets applies as much to wars between countries as to conflicts between groups and individuals. Mediators, ready to understand everyone, screen aggression; they translate the messages – transmitting the content without an aggressive tone – that thus become audible and acceptable to the other.

In these cases, mediators themselves need to know how to recognize, accept, and welcome emotions, consider them, name them, and channel them without rejecting them (Chapter 8). They witness the drama of both the emitted emotion and perceived emotion, as well as their intermingling (Lempereur and Colson 2004, chapter 6). They bring each of the parties to the mutual awareness of “How have our emotions overwhelmed our relationship?” We have often seen, in criminal mediation, for example, how a few hours of discussion can lead each person to recognize sincerely: “We both got angry …” After this de‐dramatization, the mediator can focus on the “relationship‐centered mediation.” Once the link is re‐established, the mediator withdraws and leaves the parties to deal with the problem between themselves, if possible. Or, in the framework of a “problem‐centered mediation,” they continue to help the parties formulate the needs underpinning their emotions and look for solutions together.