MEDIATION - PART ONE: The art of listening

Let me introduce: Your Highness, the mediation.

Sometimes I accompany couples who want my support in the process of their separation or divorce - children involved. As everyone knows, splitting couples aren't exactly benevolent. Otherwise, they wouldn't separate.

I will talk in this first of the mediation series part mostly about my experiences and if it looks like I'm taking the whole thing a bit too humorous at times, it's just for stylistic reasons and exaggeration. Exaggeration is an extremely valuable instrument for clarifying a matter. Without this instrument, it would be difficult to convey a message that would have the desired effect. I find this remark important so that you can find added value in my article.

In what shape do the couples come to me? They are usually very stressed, disappointed, desperate, angry and full of worry and resentment. For most people, separation is a failure on a personal level. Much thought is given to what others say about it or how others will position themselves in the future. It often seems that after a publicly announced separation, there is suddenly a threatening split of a previously unified group.

The arena is now taking entrance fees. The battle can begin.

Sorry, this is not going any further. Because, after all, that is a thing which must be seen right from the beginning. First of all, as a consultant, I am regarded as a kind of "parent replacement". Not that someone would admit it on their own accord, but I have noticed it that way. How? Because the brawlers like to claim my partiality for themselves. Similar to when a crying child walks to his mother and complains that another child has hurt him. Instead of asking the child how this happened again (!) and giving him a lesson on how to behave in order not to be beaten or injured, a good mother does the following: She understands the pain of the child. She's comforting. She's putting a bandage on a wound. Maybe she asks the child (if he is a bit older) what he/she wants to do now. And she waits quietly for the answer and otherwise trusts that her child will do it right.

For the adults,

I call it the "martial arts diploma"

A mediator is biased towards those with whom he or she goes through a mediation process. This is called "impartiality" or "all-party".

Under no circumstances should this be confused with the much better-known term "neutrality" and you should think that mediation is about not being allowed to take sides. Quite the opposite is true. A mediator always takes exactly the party of the person with whom he is in a current dialogue. A mediator must not fear his clients.

All-partyness of the mediator - The mediator leads the mediation in an all-party or all-party manner, i. e. his attitude shows a willingness to identify and be partisan with each participant. This attitude goes far beyond a simple neutrality; the mediator's neutral content does not extend to his position vis-à-vis the conflicting parties. For example, he compensates for a power disparity between the parties by temporarily acting as a mouthpiece for the less communicative party.

source: German wiki/translated

Imagine for a moment that you are the client: You want your mediator to...

... understand you
... be compassionate with you
... encourage you
... realizes when you feel helpless
... defend you
... help you with your communication problems, etc.

But first, however, a mediator sets out rules.

These rules must be accepted by the parties involved. Not only externally, but also internally. The mediator must make it clear that he reserves the right to interrupt and enquire about the current speaker, to delegate information and questions, i. e. to lead the conversation. On the other hand, he also makes it clear that mutual disruption of the disputants is a violation of the rules and he will point this out when this happens.

The mediator needs the clear mandate of his clients to conduct mediation.

The process is not possible without the consent of both parties.

Already during my training, I was afraid to deal with two people who are totally hostile to each other.

I feared the following situations:

The couple yells at each other becomes violent.
Tears flow, accusations hail, unfair means are used to fight. Nobody's gonna listen to me. I'm gonna lose control. I'm gonna make a fool of myself. People will leave angry as they come. And so on and so forth. I learned the method and the preparation truly very thoroughly, you can believe me:)

What did it really look like? So that I hardly remember what was actually the first tricky situation for me. I no longer remember the content, but only my internal constitution. I got palpitations and felt insecure. I recall my instructor's instructions in such a situation. Breathe calmly. Get up from the chair and open a window. To the clients admit that one feels a surplus of information and does not get along fully with the processing.

Reality, however, differed markedly from my horror fantasy.

I had internalized the aspect of impartiality and attached such importance to it that I was determined to act upon it. Here's the mental trick:

Client A, I call her Madeleine, starts with the matter that has been agreed upon beforehand (i. e. what is to be discussed in concrete terms in today's meeting and with what result do you want to leave the meeting?).
During the flow of Madeleine's speech I am completely her ear, listen calmly, signal to her through body language that I am facing and understanding her. Meanwhile, I keep an eye on Client B, I call him Bernard. I observe his gestures and facial expressions and note down in my mind that I will address this after the end of the Madeleine monologue as far as it seems to me to matter.
I also observe my own inner reaction to Madeleine's information. The following happens inside me:
I observe my judgments: Feelings of amazement, anger, sadness, disappointment rush past me, depending on what memories and associations I have with the said. For example, I feel anger about what has been said by Madeleine. Then I accept that I feel that way and then let go of that feeling because I know that it would deter me from supporting the process.
Above all, I'd like to place myself in Madeleine's shoes. At a certain point, I stop the conversation when it seems important to me and I also notice that Bernard's attention span is waning and he is in danger of becoming too impatient.
Then follows a translation of what Madeleine said to Bernard. Like so: "I have understood Madeleine in such a way that the separation hurts her very much and that she has many topics - but the most important one how to agree on your child's care - which she would like to discuss with you, but argues with you so much that you do not even get there. Did I interpret that correctly, Madeleine? And what do you say, Bernard, how do you feel about the said?" (Of course, Madeleine used a lot more of expressions and lengthy detours and confused chronology).
Now, the exact same process is taking place with Bernard. I listen to him and put myself in his shoes.

In this way, I act as a relaxed communication channel for the two of them, because they do not usually look at each other, but rather at me, which serves the intention. Once I let the guidance out of my hand, they will completely ignore me and start to fight, as if I were not in the room. This actually happened occasionally but was not so much of a problem to gain back the moderation role for me.

For me, this whole situation is a mixture of formal rules and artistic and intuitive dance.

Not only do I have to be aware of my client's body language and use of speech but I also have to be aware of my own inner resonance to what has been expressed. I felt extremely excited and happy after my first success in mini-mediation for a couple - which were real short mediations and held within one to three hours in total. It is not so much what they say at the moment of leaving the room. It is of more importance what they say after some time went by.

Just recently I met a former client, they only came two times and then got along well. She told me: "After consulting you we didn't fight anymore. We came to the agreement we discussed in your office and ever since were holding on to that. It was of so much help that you were o my side and that you let me speak my mind so my former husband was able to listen."

Do not interpret this as a statement against her former husband but as an acknowledgment that she had the space and the feeling of being heard by her former partner. If I would have met him instead he would remember this meeting in the same way as I do remember it myself, that I was taking the role of his advocate, too.

Once I indeed got caught by a very powerful feeling: Those of inner rage.

A mother talked about the fact that her little daughter "starts to get afraid when the father enters the common apartment." As I haven't sensed any fear whatsoever from the mother towards the father, this statement got me aroused. I assumed that she was using her daughter as a means to an end. My protection shield towards the little daughter came immediately into action.

I stood first up from my chair and then made myself little to show that I am the daughter right now. I turned to the father and told him: "Daddy, I love you and I don't want you and mommy to fight." I turned - back to adultery - towards the mother and asked her: "Does this feel right to you in describing how your daughter appears to you? Are you really sure about your daughter fearing her father? Is that the actual reason you and her have to leave together for the night and spend it at your friend's place? Isn't that strange for your daughter as she so far was used that she and her parents occupied the apartment just so?"

I got carried away a little but could manage to express that I took the protector role for the daughter which made both of them stay open for the process. If there would have been anything like that, both parents would have reacted differently.

In a process like that, I let the couple know that it is not about avoidance of resentments.

Rather it is of help that one can admit that they are there and need time to heal. I express that this is not a matter of "if" resentment will show its ugly face but "when." When a couple spent a long relationship there is by no means any chance that they'll get over it real quick. It is the same as with an old and with lots of memories loaded relationship with a friend, for example. You cannot just dump it and think that from now on it's going to be alright when you cannot admit in the first place that you are hurt and that pain and the attached feelings will first worsen the process before it can flow into more calm waters.

To get over it real quick and "look for the future" without reflecting and healing what is hurt, you won't go anywhere in a peaceful state of mind. Whenever a situation arises you will be reminded of former situations and start fighting.

As a rule, I am asking my clients: "For how long were you together? Let's say, they answer "ten years". Then I say: "you are going to need at least half of the time to get over it." It doesn't matter so much, whether I've chosen the right amount of time, but it makes clear that it will need time in any case. Some people do look quite shocked and others I can sense a feeling of relief. That takes a lot of pressure away, actually.

After letting you know about my practice experiences, I will finish this article with the

mediation protocol and a short description:

Mediation is a synthesis of numerous elements of various disciplines. From a methodological point of view, these are in particular elements from the fields of problem-solving, communication system theory, topic-centered interaction, transactional analysis and the science of group dynamics. A central concern of mediation is to bring the conflicting parties back into the conversation.

order clarification
collection of themes
positions and interests/points of view and background recognition
collecting and evaluating solution options
conclusion agreement

In the second part of this Mediation series, I will refer to this protocol and some applications.

Thank you for reading!

^Sources:
^{- Marshal B. Rosenberg - non-violent communication:}
^{https://www.cnvc.org/}
^{http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/pdf_files/4part_nvc_process.pdf}

^{- Carl Rogers - active listening: http://www.gordontraining.com/wp-content/uploads/Rogers%20Farson%20A-L%20Article.pdf}
^{- https://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html}
^{- http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/research/publications/b950.pdf}

^{- Beate Reese - Coaching and Mediation (my teacher in this module): http://beate-reese.de/}

^{- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation}
^{- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation}
^{- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory}
^{- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis}

Literature:
^{- Joseph Duss-von Werdt: Einführung in die Mediation. Carl Auer Verlag, Heidelberg 2011}
^{- Gary Friedman, Jack Himmelstein: Konflikte fordern uns heraus. Mediation als Brücke zur Verständigung. Wolfgang}

^{Boxing: Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash}
^{Bruce Lee: Photo by Fervent Jan on Unsplash}
^{Gift: Photo by The Creative Exchange on Unsplash}
^{Ballet-Dance: Photo by Sarah Cervantes on Unsplash}