Читать книгу Mediation - Alain Lempereur - Страница 48

The parties involved in a conflict often do not understand one another: they live their past as a coherent whole, and the other, whether it is a person, a department within an organization, an ethnic group, or a nation, is placed on the “negative” side. The other is of bad faith and is the representative of the “axis of evil.” French philosopher Jean‐Paul Sartre (1944) summarized it: “Hell is the others.” How did we arrive at this Manichean Yalta between the other and me?

As Chapter 6 will elaborate, the mediator helps to uncover it, as much for themselves as for each of the parties, by verifying through their questions if each party listened to and understood the other. The goal here is that a step‐by‐step, mutual comprehension of what has been perceived differently in the disagreement should come to light. The mediator will explain an essential distinction between understanding and agreeing: one party can understand how the other functioned – recognizing how the other feels – and still not agree with them. A party who understands can, at the same time, continue to express a different narrative of reality, of the distribution of responsibilities, and of the consequences to draw from it in order to find an acceptable solution to the conflict.

The reciprocal ignorance and incomprehension increase when individuals, groups, or organizations in conflict belong to radically different cultures: national cultures, but also professional cultures – such as an engineer in conflict with a legal expert. An extra factor favoring mediation requires the availability of a “multicultural” person, knowing the different, present “worlds” well, who is likely to play the role of cultural interpreter so that each party better understands the other. This essential role of cultural intermediation, for example, is taken on by criminal mediation associations in Paris.