The Crossroads of Diversity and Spirituality
On January 22, 2010, ADRNC sponsored the last program of its series, Exploring Difference, Creating Connection, with a plenary session of The Crossroads of Diversity and Spirituality. The event was hosted by JAMS San Francisco Resolution Center, which provided the meeting space, staff support and liberal drink and food fortification for all participants. And there were a lot of enthusiastic participants, filling the meeting space with a large circle while the workshop unfolded.
The presenters consisted of a powerful alliance among three mediator activists, each of whom have notable credentials. Daniel Bowling, first CEO of the Association for Conflict Resolution and currently the director for Resolve, Inc in Washington, DC, is co-editor of a formative book in the field, Bringing Peace Into the Room. David Hoffman, founding partner with the Boston Law Collaborative, LLC, is chair-elect of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and co-editor of Bringing Peace Into the Room. Marvin Johnson, the founder of Alternative Dispute Resolution, consults with governmental agencies, private companies, coalitions and individuals as both mediator and an expert in diversity issues. Normally, this group also includes Homer LaRue; LaRue was unable to attend this session, but was present in homage. In addition to bringing enormous synergy on a professional level, these men also maintain bonds of deep friendship, spanning substantial portions of their adult lives. The respect and love among them was palpable and created a distinct dynamic, both among participants and in the material being presented.
The underlying premise of the program is that mediation is more than just dispute resolution, and “allowing for diversity” is more than a macro-concept to which the politically correct must give lip service: instead, mediation is a loving, spiritual practice of openly and mindfully engaging parties who are not only negotiating an immediate conflict, but who are also negotiating a history of wounds, successes, experiences and emotions which have brought them to this point. From this perspective, the use of “diversity” as code for “race” is broken down and rebuilt into a more inclusive understanding of all the differences – and similarities – in our back stories. The primary methodological emphasis within the workshop was on creating a safe enough “container” to be able to say and ask those things which our normal social constraints bar: only by building trust sufficiently can we begin to have a real conversation, the presenters maintained.
The workshop was highly experiential: each presenter gave some background about his entry into the field and subsequent development, which provided context for an exercise. Hoffman, in describing his own history with mediation, in fact provided a lot of history for the profession of mediation as it evolved on the East Coast. Hoffman stewarded the set and setting of the workshop, using a peer introduction exercise as a way to build trust and camaraderie among participants.
Bowling has strong roots in Eastern philosophy and technologies and so brings to his mediation practice an understanding of mindfulness – being fully present in the present – and compassion. To emphasize how much we miss by powering through experiences, all participants were asked to eat a single raisin… in three slowly-paced bites! By doing so, each participant reported the experience as full of nuance and information about taste, texture, their own past experiences and body relationship that they would have otherwise glossed over.
Johnson introduced a tool and a metaphor which had strong impacts on the discussion. The tool was a life experience wheel, on which each participant was asked to document the personal roles and attributes with which s/he most strongly identified. Next, each participant correlated his/her life experiences which led to those attributes and roles. It was a moment of self-examination from which many participants gained insight into their own points of view and life choices – choices including even which attributes and roles were listed, as opposed to others. Participants shared their “stories” with each other, further building trust among the group and also providing an experiential reminder that everyone we meet has this “wheel” operating in the background of every interaction: although we don’t know what is on their wheel, we know from our own experience that there are very valid associations being made, for them, correlating their experience, point of view and actions – and the vast majority of these associations and reactions have absolutely nothing to do with the moment at hand. With this understanding, we can let go of the combative righteousness of our own point of view and extend compassionate understanding, in the moment, to the other person as a complex mosaic.
Johnson later made use of a backpack metaphor to describe the often subconscious or hidden nature of internal biases which routinely play out in our interactions, and the need to call those out in order to begin resolution. He described a person rolling a suitcase down a narrow aisle, hitting shins, knees and feet with the suitcase. The traveler sees this and immediately apologizes for the collision, taking more care as s/he continues along. The traveler with the backpack, however, similarly smacks people on the shoulders, back – maybe even face! – but is oblivious to the literal impact, because the backpack is hidden from his/her own view. It requires someone to say, “Hey! Watch your backpack!” in order to bring awareness to the problem. Johnson counsels us to call each other out and allow ourselves to be called out when this occurs.
This metaphor created the most discussion around a single point during the training. A participant stated that while the analogy was useful and true when it is, what about when there is no backpack? What do we do when a person’s life experience – their “wheel” – leads them to perceive being smacked by a backpack when, in fact, no one is wearing one? Is there a way to acknowledge someone’s pain without taking responsibility for it?
Johnson’s response seemed to suggest that this question had no validity: if someone has a reaction, then there is a backpack, even if hidden to the wearer. Bowling made an incisive point about the nature of loving compassion and asked rhetorically if it was more important to be right than to be in relationship, perhaps implying that while the “factualness” of the perception may be debatable, the quality of the emotional exchange and the ability to connect through the interaction remained primary.
This metaphor created the most discussion around a single point during the training. A participant stated that while the analogy was useful and true when it is, what about when there is no backpack? What do we do when a person’s life experience – their “wheel” – leads them to perceive being smacked by a backpack when, in fact, no one is wearing one? Is there a way to acknowledge someone’s pain without taking responsibility for it?
Yet, some participants still felt that was not wholly responsive to the question, since, as was said, if the point of truly authentic conversation is ultimately to acknowledge where we are and to begin to move, together, towards a better dynamic, then surely this requires all parties to fearlessly examine how their “filters” affect their ability to experience connection: one party’s false capitulation as violator may, in fact, diminish the opportunity for everyone. It was suggested that perhaps some middle ground was called for, such as being a compassionate witness to someone’s response, instead of apologist. To acknowledge the experience, without being causal or becoming culpable. This discussion engaged members of the group both during and some after the session, which is a great sign that it was successful in stirring ideas and examination of assumptions.