J.P. Lederach, DISCOVERY (From Preparing for Peace , Syracuse, 1995) So to Whom Do You Turn? Discovery and Creation of Mediation Models I have described in some detail the philosophical roots and goals of an elicitive approach to training, but the question still remains of how exactly yqu accomplish these ideals. A familiar saying in Spanish suggests that "Between what is said and what is done there runs a deep chasm." In other words, in real life it is never easy to fully accomplish the ideals and goals we set for ourselves. Specific to our concerns here, the elicitive format suggests that it should be possible to build a model of mediation through a training experience. In the next two chapters, I will present several approaches and exercises within an elicitive perspective aimed specifically at model building in mediation. First, I outline a training process that builds from people's natural understanding of providing help. In the following chapter, I suggest how role-play can be used as a tool for developing mediation models. Seeking Help: An Elicitive Exercise In many introductory workshops in North American mediation, training begins with an overview and description of the process. The format is often a short descriptive lecture about the purpose,, structure,, rules,. expectations, and roles that comprise the mediation process. Implicit in the opening description are the cultural assumptions of how the process is accomplished and the naming of the process and its components. In settings where I work with groups from cultural and linguistic contexts other than my own, I have used a different opening exercise, one that takes several steps back from presenting a process or naming it. It is built around three key questions. It can be used as a shorter introductory piece or can easily provide the material for a longer, more exploratory effort. The exercise follows these steps for setup and implementation. 1. Open the exercise with a statement like this: "I want everyone to think back to a time when you found yourself experiencing problems with someone else. You know things are not right. This can be a problem in your family, among friends, at work, or in your neighborhood. Now, I want you to think through this question. If things got difficult and you felt you needed help with this problem, who would you go to for help? Get the image of this person or persons in your mind. Then work on and share the following with your small group: Why did you choose this person? What characteristics does he or she have? What do you expect from this person?" 2. Invite participants to think on their own for a short while and then to join a small group. These groups discuss their various answers and compile a list of ideas to report back to the large group. 3. Record the responses on a blackboard, on newsprint, or on index cards. Index cards are most useful if a longer exploratory process is desired. In the process of reporting, people are encouraged to talk about examples of what they mean or why they chose a certain concept or characteristic. As the responses come out, ideas that are repeated are marked or noted. 4. The final step moves toward a summary and conclusion, the detail of which varies with the time and purpose of the exercise. For example, if time is limited and the exercise is proposed as an initial step leading to more exploration of real life cases, summarize the emerging major themes by building from the key and repeated ideas. On the other hand, if time permits, it can be a very useful exercise to ask the participants to create their own inter- pretation and even the beginnings of a model. In this case, we might follow the storyboarding process. Storyboarding in Model Creation Walt Disney developed the process of storyboarding in outlining and producing cartoons. It has made its way into conflict resolution as a useful process for identifying problems and possible solutions. I have been using a variation of storyboarding in training as a tool for facilitating the discovery and creation of mediation models that may be implicit in the culture. In essence, the storyboarding process involves working with index cards. A single idea, word, or image is written on each card related to a given theme. A story is then created by linking and grouping these cards together by commonality or sequence. To create a mediation model, I have used the process in the following format: 1. First, the most significant and key ideas identified in the plenary sharing related to the three questions on seeking help are written, one per index card. 2. A complete set of these index cards is given back to each small working group. 3. Each group then works with the cards, almost as if they formed a puzzle, reflecting on questions such as: How do these ideas fit together? Is there a sequence? Are some ideas describing a particular aspect of providing help? What would we call this set of ideas or this aspect? 4. Each group then reports back on how it has arranged the cards and ideas and is asked, among other things, to name the key commonalities, or steps, or overall arrangements that have been identified. At each step in this process, we can push out the purpose of the exercise as it relates to the objectives of an elicitive approach. First, rather than describing a predefined process, participants are invited to move back into their own experiences and identifying the elements that are relevant in seeking and providing help. Second, as trainers, we move away from the temptation of naming the process or elements. The exercise tries to keep names generic and general, such as "help" rather than "mediation." Participants are the ones who provide concepts or categories that describe this help. Third, the direction a training may go is never predictable. Many people will begin their reflection by saying, "it depends": "It depends whether I have an economic problem, or a family problem, or problem with my boss." On the surface, this may seem to be distracting. From the ehcitive viewpoint, however, this is precisely the implicit knowledge that leads to explicit identification and appropriate model building. For example, in Uganda, one participant noted that if there were a problem with my brother we would go to my father or an uncle, but if the problem is with a neighbor, then we may need to seek out an elder. What begins to emerge are the ways people think about conflict, the resources and traditions they are intuitively aware of, why those are appropriate, and why they may no longer exist or are not used. Fourth, working from a small group back to a larger group enhances the richness and the realism of what is discussed. This undergirds the proposition that people from the setting are not only the best resource for coming up with ideas about how things work; but they are also the best resource for providing a realistic check about whether an idea is valid. Finally, especially if the longer process is followed, people can begin to push out key characteristics and ideas about how help is provided in their setting. Further steps often involve identifying obstacles, what things have been lost (for example, through modernization or immigration), what things hold promise that need to be worked on, and probably most importantly, what we call this process or processes. For example, in Panama among the Embere and Wounaan Indians, this early exercise resulted in the suggestion that providing help was a lot like guiding someone through the riverways of the dense jungle. For the remainder of our time we referred to third parties as guides. An Example: Help in Central America Because these descriptions and ideas appear somewhat abstract in the written form, let me describe several cases in Central America where time permitted us to look more carefully at the ideas. I have found that the questions-Who do you turn to? Why that person? What do you expect from them?-posed to different groups often identified a number of common words and themes. In a couple of cases, each of the words that came out more frequently in response to these questions was written on a card. People in smaller groups were then asked to take this set of cards-usually numbering between twenty and thirty-and arrange them accordingly to commonality, sequence, or whatever made most sense to them. On a number of occasions, the following kind of arrangement or conversation would emerge. For the benefit of the reader, I have placed quotation marks around words that emerged with frequency in the initial exercise. First, key to why certain people are chosen were the ideas of "trustworthiness," that "we know them," that "they know us" and can "keep our confidences." These terms often came together in a single overarching concept: confianza, a profoundly cultural term that is inadequately translated as trust or confidence. In several groups, confianza became a key to understanding how they work at conflict and how they think about resolution and healing. Confianza points to relationship building over time, to a sense of "sincerity" a person has and a feeling of "security" the person "inspires" in us that we will "not be betrayed." Confianza is a key for "entry" into the problem and into the person with whom we have the problem. From the eyes of everyday experience in Central America, when I have a problem with someone I do not look for an outside professional. Rather I look for someone I trust who also knows the other person and is trusted by them. This kind of person can give "orientation" and "advice." Through this person, entry is accomplished. Second, a number of terms often emerged around the idea of " support, " "talk," and "listening." These almost always involved a popular term for an informal chat, platicar. This is more than simply "talking." It involves cultural understanding of communicative mechanisms for "sharing," "exchanging" and "checking things out." Platicar is fundamentally a way of being with another, of reaffirming the relationship, and in many more delicate situations of preparing the way for "dialogue" that may involve confrontation. Through the platica people feel "supported," "heard," "understood," and "accompanied." Third, people want "help," "advice,"' and "direction." From others we seek "paths" that can lead us " out of the problem." Often, in working with the these words and concepts,, two ideas stood out. First, was the concept of looking for or giving consejo, or advice. At a popular level, conflict resolution thinking is advice driven and sought. But it is not in the sense of giving advice that North American helping professions may advise against. Seeking and giving advice often has more to do with participation in seeking solution-in other words, brainstorming-than in narrowing to choose action or impose solution. Looking for advice is seeking the pool of collective wisdom, seeking support and understanding. Thus, in the course of a conversation, much advice may be batted around, providing the seeker with a sense of solidarity and ideas. Additionally, people often talked about the idea of ubicarse, which literally is to "locate oneself," or in our vernacular, "figuring out where I am." Getting advice, "identifying the problems," providing "orientation" are all part of figuring out what's going on, where I am, and where I should go. Finally, a number of terms emerge around the concern of how I "get out" of this mess. People look for "solutions" most often understood as an arreglo, an "arrangement." This term combines a number of ideas, from "fixing things" and "putting things back together," to "getting an agreement" or "understanding." Key to an arreglo is a way of thinking that is holistic in nature, that is, seeing oneself and the problem in the context of a network rather than as isolated from it. Thus, an "arrangement" creates a salida, a common term meaning a way out, but a way out that maintains the network and relationship and fosters dignity. In other words, it saves face. Pulling these ideas together, one group in Costa Rica outlined their understanding of how we get in and out of conflict and provide "help" by building on their terms as guidelines (see figure 10). It is worth noting that this overall outline resonates with important metaphors and images common to the way people think about conflict in a Central American setting. The language of conflict describes a journey involving the tasks of getting in, figuring out where we are, and getting out. In fact, this set of concepts helps reinforce key cultural premises: a focus on relationship, trustbuilding, restoration of community, and use of people in the network. It focuses on being with others as a mode of restoration rather than applying technique as a mode of resolving problems. In terms of model building, we are now in a position to take a further step. Each of these words-such as confianza or arreglar has rich cultural and practical meaning and represents important organizing categories for model building. These common, everyday terms describing the action of working on the restoration of relationship and the resolution of conflict, renamed, become empowering tools. The model-building exercise rooted these words and processes within the culture and encouraged participants to name them, providing categories for further discovery, for exploration, and for use as the building blocks of a more explicit model. Important questions can now guide the next steps in understanding more fully the applicability and implementation of the model: What are the approaches to building confianza? How does one pursue la platica? What are constructive elements for getting situated and arranging a way out? Point of Convergence The prescriptive-elicitive spectrum helps bring to the surface the question of cultural universality of conflict resolution and mediation practices. This question was posed in a sharper manner in a series of training workshops I conducted with the Northern Ireland Mediation Network. Having received early training in the North American mediation model, over the past years, community mediators in Northern Ireland have sought to "Irishize" the approach-creating a dilemma. In the Northern Ireland context, the early and current mediation training provided a vehicle of enrichment, a new way to look at and deal with conflict, which clearly created a sense of empowerment. Yet, the application of the training in real-life cases did not seem to bear the level of fruit expected in getting people into the process or carrying it to a successful mediated conclusion. People would come to trainings to learn models and skills, but the Irish people would not bring conflicts to be mediated along the lines proposed by the model. "How is it," I remember one participant asking, "that we can feel enlightened by learning the model and simultaneously uncomfortable that it does not quite fit?" The question provided a rich and useful device for further exploration. In my analysis, it helped sharpen the underlying conviction that a convergence of universal and particular with prescriptive and elicitive was both possible and necessary. At a theoretical level, a heuristic framework was necessary, and at a training level a new tool was needed. These came together in what I consider to be one of the most basic of all sociological premises, that form follows function. I would suggest we can bring the conflict functionalism of Coser (1956) together with a social constructionist view of Schutz (1967) and Blumer (1969). This is one way of looking at the seminal work of Gulliver (1979), who attempted broad case and cultural comparison in dispute resolution in order to establish the basic parameters of negotiation functions while recognizing the multiplicity of cultural forms. This approach was the general orientation of my early investigation into the cultural assumptions of the North American mediation model (1985), where I suggested mediation had a set of basic components that needed to be,met, but that varied significantly in terms of the specific mechanisms for meeting them. Moving from function to form is like moving down a spectrum from universal to particular. As I outlined in chapter 5, the transfer modality in training rarely distinguishes analytically between these two. Most conflict-resolution and mediation training concentrates on "skills transfer," which are the more particular forms, as if the form was universal, when in fact the form tends to be more particular to the context and culture. With this broad intuition in mind, over the course of the past year, I have devised and explored a training tool that suggests a convergence (figure 11). First developed in Spanish and shared in the Basque Country, and subsequently in Northern Ireland in early 1994, it remains in an experimental and rough form. It is built on four categories. Facets refers to basic aspects and components necessary for the work of any third-party process intervening in a social conflict. The functions respond to a set of key questions related to accomplishing the facets. The forms begin to answer the questions in terms of broader strategies and approaches, which are more culturally constructed for a given setting. The formulas are then seen as the specific tactics, skills, and mechanisms, or the technique, by which the forms are implemented. The facet-function aspects suggest a series of things that will likely be dealt with in any mediated process. Based on earlier work and experience, I would outline these briefly as a circular, interactive process, although for purposes of analysis these appear as phases in figure 11. Entry deals with the question of who will emerge as an acceptable third party and how the process and forum for dealing with the conflict will be constructed. In general, in one way or another, what is sought is a mechanism to bring to the surface and seek remedy for the problem. The third party, in this sense, provides a way to seek help. Involved is not only an initial negotiation of the proper place to lodge the conflict, but also a definition of the expectations for the roles and process that will be followed. Gathering Perspectives, or what is often referred to as storytelling, responds to the question of "what happened?" In other words, it opens a space for looking at the past, providing opportunity for people to express and air their grievances and concems. Important and widely shared needs in social conflict include the process of legitimation of concern through acknowledgement of pain and feelings, past wrongs and grievances, truth, and responsibflities. Perhaps most crucial is the element of legitimating a recognition and acknowledgment of the person or groups involved, in other words, being heard and taken seriously. Locating the Conflict grapples with the question "where are we?" often metaphorically referred to by people in conflict who are trying to figure out where they are in relationship to others and problems experienced. It is the process of attaching meaning to events and people's action and situating what the conflict is about in order to know how to deal with it. This is the fundamental need to create an understanding of the conflict and a common framework that permits people to move forward. Arrange and Negotiate answer the dilemma of "how do we get out?" Here the focus is on dealing with the nature of the relationship and the issues posed by the conflict. "Arranging" points toward a broader process of how the relationship is understood by the those in conflict. Negotiate deals with the narrower focus of how issues will be resolved, at times referred to as problemsolving. In the end, the process will help create paths leading toward resolution of some aspects of the conflict and redefinition of the relationship. Way Out and Agreement deal with the questions of "who will do what, when?" Agreement tends to be more specific in terms of concrete expected action and implementation. The way out, on the other hand, points toward the broader mechanism that acknowledges ongoing ebb and flow of conflict in the context of relationship. In other words, it points, metaphorically, toward conflict as part of relational journey, where paths may cross, broaden together, or part their ways. The form-formula columns outline the increasingly more specific ways that the facets and functions are met in particular settings and situations. For the purposes of demonstrating the application of the tool, I have suggested in figure 11 two broad comparisons of form and formula emerging from radically different settings. The first is the approach that might commonly be used in community mediation in the United States; the second outlines some aspects of how conflicts have been handled in elders conferences in the Somali context. In brief narrative, and not assuming any attempt here to be comprehensive in either process, we could suggest the following: In the community mediation approach, the general form for entry involves a formal mediator role, often a person who is trained as a volunteer, or in some instances views himself or herself as a professional. By formalization, I refer to the explicit, often written understanding of the role and expectations. The process is more often than not oriented toward providing faceto-face encounters between the disputants and facilitated by the mediator. The entries under formula are more specific. Disputants contact a center. They are brought into a process aimed at gaining acceptance for meeting in a facilitated session. The session itself is governed by ground rules and takes place at a neutral location, often the mediation center itself. Sessions are conceived as blocks of time-usually two hours or less-and may be carried out in multiple meetings over several weeks to several months depending on the complexity of the case. A key in the development of the mediator role and early process are the mechanisms for creating trust and a safe atmosphere for the disputants. Drawing from personal experience and the research of Dr. A. Y. Farah (1993) on Somali peace conferences in Northwest Somalia, currently declared Somaliland, we can describe some characteristics for dealing with inter-clan conflict. Generally, serious inter-clan conflict will call for the movement toward creating a guurti or a supreme council of elders. This involves a collective coordination over a considerable period of time, where elders are recognized as having traditional power for facilitating and arbitrating the process and events and monitoring the outcomes. In the severely divided, war-torn context, the formula for entry involved among other things the use of delegations of women, who, by marriage, were now connected to one clan " but who could also safely travel back to their clans of origin to pass on communication and encourage the initiation of cross-clan dialogue. The same may be true of a delegation of recognized elders that travels to meet another subclan's elders, referred to traditionally as an ergada. These early contacts make way for a space where fighting is stopped while consultations emerge. An open, multiple, and cross-clan peace conference is preceded often by a combination of intra-sub-subclan deliberations about grievances, issues and representation and then a series of iterant,, cross-subclan deliberations and consultations. Iteration refers to a process whereby no one meeting or consultation is seen as conclusive, but remains open and ongoing over time. This consultative process is where perspectives are gathered, procedural steps are negotiated, and the basic parameters are set for moving toward a more explicit forum guided by the guurti. The preparatory phase may appear like a traveling (literally as in itinerate) set of inconclusive consultations. In fact,, setting parameters., negotiating agenda,, and establishing the beginnings of a reconciliation process are being conducted. What is described here meets the facets of entry,. perspective gathering, and locating and arranging in a circular, iterative process. The process itself builds from smaller collectives toward a larger collective and forum-a bottom-up approach to peace building. The actual forum or peace conference can take the form of large,, usually public meetings,, marked by lengthy oratory speeches and the extensive use of poetry People present have a basic felt right to speak. As a Somali proverb puts it, "You can deny a Somali his food but not his word." Poetry remains a revered art form and can move people toward war or toward reconciliation. As -a formula of conflict resolution it helps locate and situate grievances and meaning and justifies views and demands of different groups. It is a traditional mechanism that has modern parallel in the mass media's effect on public opinion and conflict analysis in terms of locating the conflict by arguing for causes, rights, and responsibilities. Given these components, the preparation and the conduct of a peace conference can easily last four to six months. Throughout, the elders help prepare, moderate, listen, and, in a number of cases, arbitrate procedural problems, as well as helping formulate an eventual consensus of the dans on the substance and relationship. While the open meeting provides one forum, simultaneously', a variety of inter and subdan deliberations continue on the side, at times in- volving lengthy, late-night qu'at sessions. (Quat is a leaf traditionally chewed and used for facilitating talks.) In the community mediation model, disputants are expected to reveal their concerns and feelings. The mediator's tasks are to provide an atmosphere for hearing and identifying the issues and to work on the relationship. This is accomplished, for example, by paraphrasing and posing open questions to get more information and by helping to identify a common agenda or list of issues to negotiate as the process moves toward problem solving. In the movement toward negotiation and arranging, media- tion has a series of common techniques. For example, mediators will ask disputants to focus on one issue at a time, to separate their proposed solutions from their underlying interests, and to brainstorm a variety of options before they evaluate and move toward a solution. Generally, the focus of mediation is to discover mutually beneficial solutions and outcomes. As these come together in pieces or packages, the community mediation process recommends formulating them in a final agreement that is written, concise, and clear. It usually outlines specific detail around expected actions. Mediators serve as a reality check in terms of whether the proposed agreements can be accomphshed. Often, some form of follow-up contact with the mediators is included in the final agreement as a mechanism for monitoring or assuring the implementation. In the Somali context, the agreements initially achieved in an oral format have taken written form in the recent peace conferences (1992-94). They may involve specific and traditional mechanisms for dealing with cross-clan conflicts and restitution, for example, the payment of female camels as compensation. Past grievances and restoration of relationship have also traditionally been accomplished by the exchange of women for marriage between two warring clans as both a symbolic compensation for the loss of life and a bond of blood connection between the groups (Farah 1993). In many instances, the elders and the elders councils continue to function as monitors and guarantors of the peace agreements. Although brief and incomplete, the comparison provides an example of convergence in terms of universal/particular and prescriptive/elicitive. What I am suggesting is that training on third party roles and mediation can help participants recognize key needs and functions the process may serve. On the other hand, the training process must also recognize the limitations of given forms and formulas and seek to work with those that are more culturally rooted and adapted to the nature of the problem and the context within which it moves. Facet/Function suggest the usefulness of prescriptive and universal perspectives. There are shared, common, and, in that way., transferable ideas and approaches that can be helpful and can cross-fertilize. Form/Formulas suggest the usefulness of elicitive and more particular cultural discovery work. There is a need to innovate, adapt, and work in appropriate ways in each and every setting. In the end, as trainers, we must be flexible to pull from both resources what is needed at a given time and for a given purpose in the training. Conclusion In this chapter, I have attempted to demonstrate the possibility of approaching training as the challenge of working together with a group to discover and develop a model of mediation. In a number of the examples, especially the Central American- and U.S.-based community mediation, it is important to note the difference between a more professional, formalized process and the informal, traditional mechanisms. The prescriptive and elicitive approaches are in part the distinction and comparison between the transfer of a formal, more professional model in one society, in this case the North American, and the more informal, folk model of another, as was described in the Central American model in figure 10. The question then arises of whether a similar folk model would emerge if an eficitive approach were to be applied in the North American setting. And whether, therefore, we are comparing apples and oranges. In other words, we may not be dealing exclusively with cultural differences between countries and societies, but rather with cultural differences between edu- cational levels and economic classes within the same society. This concern is not new to the research in some regards. In fact, the empirical work by Merry and Silbey (1984) suggested that the models of community mediation tested in the Northeastern United States, having developed in formal training under the heavy influence of what they regard as Western academic concern for rational analysis and problem solving, did not fit the modalities of more working-class constituencies, who were looking for different approaches in seeking remedy. What I am proposing here is not that the one intervention model is better than another. Rather, I am pushing for the expansion of how we approach the training methodology to include the process of discovery of how people actually think and go about seeking remedy and solution and how that knowledge can be tapped as a resource and foundation for developing models that fit clearly in a given setting. In sum, an elicitive orientation suggests that we consider what is present in a cultural setting the basis for identifying key categories and concepts to use as foundational building blocks for a conflict resolution model. It assumes that the culture is a resource and that participants are capable of identifying and naming their own realities and tools. Practically, this means they dig into the mines of their own knowledge and setting. Rather than learning the language of a new model (for example, the North American mediation language about information gathering, assessment, and problem solving), and then needing to ferret out the implicit assumptions from that model for a particular cultural context,, the elicitive approach initiates learning with the implicit but constructive images and assumptions present in the culture and builds toward an explicit model. It is therefore necessary for us to have available a pure elicitive approach in contrast with a pure prescriptive approach, in order to find the ways that these provide orientation, options, and convergence in terms of training methodology.