01-04-10
Differentiating between therapeutic
and traditional mediation

Therapeutic mediation has emerged from the practice of the Shared Concern method (SCm) when solving cases of group bullying.  This approach created so much confidence in the students that they disclosed cases of conflict including group bullying. 

Later I became aware of the differences between the therapeutic SCm-mediation and the prevailing tradition of mediation. 

Before I will put up the two contrasting mediation approaches in two columns I would stress that the similarities are greater than differences.

  • We maintain a neutral position not favoring one side or the other.
  • We  listen carefully to both parties.
  • We avoid blame and look forward with confidence to the solution.
  • We show empathy and understanding without being judgmental.


And above all, both approaches aim at an agreement that satisfies both parties also in the long run.

In the left column of the following table I have chosen central statements of two authors whom I appreciate. (Helena Cornelius and Shoshana Faire in Everyone Can Win. (1994). (C&F) They are  representatives of a traditional mediation approach as its best.
Adjucation, arbration, conciliation and other related concepts
In traditional mediation, 
the mediator:		 In therapeutic mediation,
the mediator
Order of
proceedure		 States verbally his or her neutral position at the beginning. 
The both parties are present together at the start. They are first asked to define their disagreement. "Have  a big board or sheet …recording the significant aspects of the problem". (C&F p 157)		 Asks the parties to explain their concerns in separate talks. 
His or her way of listening conveys non-verbally the empathy for the parties combined with neutraly regarding the guilt problem. Written statements could be used to state solutions, but not to focus on disagreements.
Preser-
ving
neutrally		 (Quote:) "Don't become caught
up in agreeing how awful the
situation is and how right they
are". (C&F p 153)		 The therapeutic mediator agrees that the situation is awful but conveys, kindly, the message "I am concerned about your concern, but I am concerned about the other party's concern too."
Offering solutions (Quote:) "Any suggestion
should be offered as options, not directions". (C&F p 152).		 No suggestion at all should be "offered" by the mediator. His or listening will create an intimate communication atmosphere of separate talks the parties even the tiniest ideas for a solution  Key line: "Could you find out if there is any idea of a solution you both could  accept!"
Negotia-
tion proce-
dures		 (Quote:)
  • We are here to solve a problem.
  • No blaming.
  • No excuses.
  • No interrupting.

    • Tell the truth. (C&F p 155).
 All these rules are conveyed non-verbally in the separate talks with the parties. The later meeting with the parties together does not take place before there is some probability that they will strive towards a shared solution. In that well prepared summit meeting the mediator who in his or her role as chairperson states these rules unobtrusively.
Ending the media-
tion		 The negotiation ends with a firmly stated agreement preferably written down and signed. (C&F p 155). After the parties have agreed and expressed their satisfaction, the mediator asks "What  to do if some of you does not keep the agreement?"  The discussion arrives at the statement that greater disagreements should be brought again to the mediator, moderate problems discussed between themselves, and the smaller ones just tolerated.
Summary:
"What
makes it
tick"		 The authority of a kindly judge-king who, from his or her vast life experience, knows what the right solution could be for the
parties.		 An alert facilitator of a shared solution brings forward constructive elements inherent in the parties and reinforces them with delicate sensitivity and balanced enthusiasm.
The last row of the columns expresses different driving forces of the two mediation approaches:  the two different archetypes.