01-04-10
What is meant by "archetype" in mediation?
Why care about "archetypes"?
Mediation, like all engaging enterprises, needs guide lines that emanate from a constructive answer to our question "What makes it tick in mediation?" I have found that the concept "archetype" has an explanatory power -- if you  discover the dialectics of two mediator archetypes. More important, both of these archetypes  can  release a quick emotional understanding in the conflict parties and a powerful action pattern in you as mediator. 
Defining "archetype"

An "archetype" (from Greek archetypos, "beginning pattern") is a preexistent (primordial) image or idea that reappears in human thoughts, actions or desires constantly enough to be considered a universal concept or gestalt. These concepts or gestalts exist in the so-called "collective consciousness"; they are easy to recognize and they elicit the same kind of reactions independent of culture. They can be positive (e.g. "mother", "friend") or negative (e.g. "bully", "enemy"). Also elementary action patterns (e.g. "fight", "make love") are also archetypes.

However, the archetypes that are crucial for mediation are not always manifested as personal identities of the mediator but constituted in communicative interactions between the mediator and the parties.
 
In sum: 

Archetypes are mental images that are elicited by other images or needs and have the capacity themselves to elicit needs, images and action patterns.

When looking for an appropriate archetype for mediation we discover that two different archetypes are applied in mediation: the judge-king and the "facilitator of shared solution". 

 
 
The archetype of a judge-king

 
Flock leaders
Judge-kings
In flock of primates the flock leader keeps peace by intervention in conflicts between its individual members. It promotes the survival of the flock. Now and then in the history of humankind the judge-kings decided the disputes between their subjects.  (E.g. in the early medieval history in Europe and in the Jewish history described in Deuteronomy -- the book of judge-kings.) The collective consciousness of these societies was supported by the assumption that he who has enough power already has no private interest to favor one of the parties. 

As we know this assumption was not always valid then and it is still less valid now when "king" is replaced by "authority".
.
Good parents
The younger the children the more they rely upon the intervention by parents and adults when conflicts occur. The wise parent or teacher demonstrates listening to the arguments of the parties before he or she makes the decision about possible guilt and encourages reconciliation and, if needed, imposes one or both to ask each other for forgiveness.

The archetype of judge-king/ judge-authority/ strong flock leader/ parental authority can seldom bring about lasting effects  amongst people who want to develop their democracy.

 
The archetype of "therapeutic mediator" or "facilitator from-shared-concern-to-shared solution" 
This archetype emanates from the co-operative practice in  our daily life. It works as an unnoticeable routine so that we certainly do not think that it is an "archetype" we are following. It is a pattern of action that has not a simple name. I suggest, so far, "therapeutic mediator" implying that he or she is facilitating the process "from-shared-concern-to-shared solution". 

Or in other words, we are not introducing a psychotherapeutic approach in the sense of investigating the background motives of the parties. We are "therapeutic" in the sense that we focus on the concerns they have but selecting those that can be shared with the other party. Then, we advance to solutions that can be shared by them both.
"Archetype" is a sophisti-
cated name for an everyday process
 
Neighbors discovering shared concern about a problem, say, water leaking from a common pipe line, will normally work together to reach a shared solution. The same immediate co-operative actions occur when friends in trouble, family members or colleagues help each other pulling their weight in assignments and duties sharing and solving common problems while living and working together.

The neighbor related co-operative routines are employed so frequently and the  "from-shared-concern-to-shared solutions" occur in a so self-evident manner in normal life that there would be no reason to label it as a "method" or call it "archetype".  Unless ... 
 

Conflicts occur and the parties are looking for help to solve it
Suppose that misunderstandings or conflicts of interest occur and the parties are not able to sort it out by discussion. The innate mechanisms of aggression and withdrawal are ready to be released but are not considered satisfying. The parties are looking around for help. Can we find allies? Non-aggressive solutions?

What is the contribution of  our highest organizations? What is offered in  our contemporary psychology in universities or weekend courses?
 
  • Declarations of Human Rights without no Declarations of Use. It sounds politically correct to cheer the UN declarations and worship it as ideal but when conflicts occur both parties fight for their interpretation of their own rights. 
  • Popular techniques  improving human interaction The dominating courses in conflict resolution satisfy the ego needs of their customers. The participants get the illusion that conflicts are solved by qualified assertiveness.  "I" statements, or learning new linguistic habits. ("Giraff-language" instead of "Wolf language" or "Jackal language".) However, the other party who has not attended the course considers  "I" statements or "Giraff-language" just a new trick invented by your ego expansion or a narcissistic culture.)
  • Investigations in the background of the parties. At the international level history, political science and sociology give explanations of the background that certainly increase the endless understanding but do not provide solutions. The same academic habit to resort to explanatory models prevails in clinical psychology. Causes of misbehaviour are led back to childhood experiences. It gives often  a tension release for interior conflicts but is incapable to handle the situation when the other party ot the conflict who has not attended the course enters the scene. 
    		•

    Certainly, we need a better ethos to be applied in conflict resolution but we cannot apply the ethical rules in ongoing conflicts because when they happen our mental mechanisms are governed by the flow of adrenaline that selects the mental images that maintain aggression. "Injustice", "enemy",  "revenge" etc. are providing pleasure our body wants to keep. 

    A conflict is a power struggle. Like primates who have the leader monkey as mediator we are first looking for a mediator in possession of power. A boss or the president of America. Modern variants of judge-king. We find "What makes it tick in mediation" when analyzing  the success and failures of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. 

    When Jimmy Carter mediated between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin with lasting results he followed what I have described as "facilitator of shared concern leading to a shared solution". Carter invested time for separate talks. Carter had an image of a listening peace maker. He was not suspected to gain personal interest. Contrary to that, Bill Clinton was eager to play a role as mediator in order to lean away the public interest in his womanizing.  When I wrote this on my home page (in 4th November 2000) I learned from the newsreel that he has called Arafat and Barak to the white house some hours before he went to North Korea in some alleged peace business. 

    Now, in April 2001 it is far too late for any kind of mediation in Palelestine-Israeli conflict. Nobody can prove that if Carter had been president instead of Clinton he would have succeeded. One thing is sure that the chances had been far better.
     

     
     

     
    The archetype shared-concern-and-solution has potentials of a popular movement

    Only a popular but qualified movement can liberate our crucial archetype. I propose the following for its implementation..

    • Some people  who have already  intuitively sensed a need to liberate the archetype of "from-shared-concern-to-shared solution" understand that they need to improve their personal skills when doing it.
    • They take part in workshops and make personal here-and-now experiences about "What makes it tick?" in mediation. They experience the crucial point:  attentive listening to the parties combined with alertness to reinforce and develop constructive elements.
    • They discover that the Shared Concern method is useful in solving conflicts in other areas than were actually  trained in the workshops. They check their experiences with other course participants and friends and spread their insights by word of mouth.
    UN was and 
    still is aimed 
    for releasing 
    the archetype "from shared-
    concern-
    to-shared solution".