Stop the Family Fight: How to Reconcile

Joe, Martha, George and Anna had been fighting over their parents’ home and five acres for ten years. They had endured four lawsuits amongst each other, some resulting in judgments that had been enforced. Four years ago, the home burned to the ground with no insurance to rebuild, leaving a vacant lot to fight over. Each side had gone through two or more lawyers. The family had been torn apart through bitterness, anger, and strong feelings of injustice.

I was called in by the current lawyers to see if I could help matters. Other than confirmation of my engagement, I received no letters or mediation briefs outlining the problem to me. This was a case where I literally walked in cold.

The lawyers seemed anxious to get this matter resolved and out of their respective offices. They, fortunately, were cooperating with each other in trying to find solutions to this intractable family conflict.

After introductions, I began the process. First, I explained that each person had four options for deciding how to deal with the conflict. I used a flip chart to draw out the four options: coercion, outside authority, peacemaking, and negotiation. I observed that coercion had not worked, outside authority had led to four unsatisfactory lawsuits, and that the high level of conflict escalation and mistrust made one-on-one negotiation unlikely to be productive. I then said that everyone in the room had chosen today to try third option: peacemaking.

“You have the power to decide if this matter will resolve and how it will resolve,” I said. “I am the least powerful person in this room. My job is to manage the process, provide a safe environment for difficult conversations, and support your work in any way necessary.” I asked if this option was the choice of each person in the room. Everyone agreed that it was. This was probably the first thing the family had unanimously agreed upon in years.

I described the peacemaking process, and how I wanted them to share their stories and perspectives. I explained the difference between positions and interests. To their surprise, I was not interested in their positions and wanted to focus on identifying their interests. I explained the problem solving process they would utilize and answered questions and concerns. Again, they each agreed that the process seemed to make sense.

Before letting them begin their work, I established ground rules. “One person speaks at a time without interruption. You each agree to summarize back what you have heard. You agree to speak the truth from your heart and your mind. You will be respectful of each other, the process and me through your words, tone of voice and body language. Finally, the process has to be fair at all times.” I asked if each agreed to these ground rules and as we went around the table, every person affirmed his or her commitment.

For the next two hours, we listened to stories. Summarizing back was difficult, as it usually is in bitter and intractable disputes. With support and practice, each of the brothers and sisters became more comfortable with summarizing. More importantly, they learned to listen to each other carefully and empathically.

After the stories were told and heard, we turned to interests. I elaborated on the differences between positions and interests then asked everyone to take some private time and identify what interests needed to be satisfied for the conflict to be resolved.

When we re-convened, the interests went up on the chart one at a time. Everyone was amazed to find out that they shared almost all of the same interests. I smiled to myself because discovery of common ground happens in every peacemaking assignment and is one of the powerful parts of the process. When all of the interests had been identified, I asked two questions.

“Are any of these interests mutually exclusive? That is, will satisfying one interest mean that under all circumstances some other interest cannot be satisfied?” Everyone reflected on the question and looked at the interests. They agreed that the interests could all be satisfied.

“If we can find a way to satisfy all of these interests, do we have a basis for ending the conflict and finding peace?” Everyone hesitated as they realized I was asking for a commitment to peace. A few questions were raised and answered. Silence followed for at least two minutes. Finally, one at a time they agreed that if the interests could be satisfied, the conflict could be resolved.

We spent the remainder of the afternoon developing options that would satisfy the interests. I framed the conflict as a joint problem to be solved rather than a competition to be won or lost. The brothers and sisters engaged in a friendly and spirited conversation about how all of the interests could be fulfilled. Within an hour, an agreement was reached.

This story illustrates how the peacemaking process can bring parties separated by intractable, bitter conflict together to restore trust, foster cooperation, collaborative problem solving, and most poignantly, permit reconciliation. I had the good fortune to work with attorneys who let their clients do the hard work and who saw their role as counselors, not advocates.

And what was the solution? Everyone agreed that the property should be donated to the family church, that all claims and judgments should be exonerated and released, and that they should get back to the business of being a family again.

http://www.nollassociates.com

 

Peacemaker Douglas Noll Identifies Cultural Shift Towards Peace

Douglas Noll, award winning peacemaker, President of the California Dispute Resolution Council, award winning author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts(Prometheus, 2011) and this year’s winner of the CLAY award, discovers a cultural attitude shift towards the war in Afghanistan identified in his book Elusive Peace. “Most people accepted the war effort as long as Osama bin Laden was alive. The desire for vengeance and the accompanying hormone high has ended,” Noll states, adding that “a dopamine high accompanies a desire for vengeance.”

Noll writes in his award winning book Elusive Peace about brain function as it relates to conflict and peace. Science shows that the brain expresses pleasure hormones (Dopamine) when the need or desire for revenge occurs as featured in an article in Scientific American: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=revenge-evolution). “Once the motivation for revenge wanes the dopamine wears off and people lose motivation and interest in vengeance. The motivator, in this case, Osama bin Laden, is gone,” Noll explains.

“The recent protest in Chicago at the NATO summit was widely received and reported in media. This is new. Before, protests against the war in Iraq were met with resistance and a general attitude of dismay at outspoken anti-war protesters, much like the public criticism Cindy Sheehan received. Today, however anti-war sentiments are more widely accepted and approved. By the reports, people are tired of war and the media is reflecting that in stories,” Noll says predicting that “these anti-war sentiments coupled with a cultural anxiety about a protracted military spending campaign will be reflected at the voting booths in the upcoming election.”

Douglas Noll is the winner of the International Peace and Justice Book Award for Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts. Doug is the 2012 winner of the CLAY award for co-founding the pro bono project Prison of Peace. Doug is a keynote speaker and sought after leader in the field of international, domestic and business conflicts. Doug is a sought after interview guest on TV and radio, and a keynote speaker and workshop presenter.

Doug is a full time peacemaker and mediator, specializing in difficult, complex, and intractable conflicts, an adjunct professor of law and has a Master’s Degree in Peacemaking and Conflict Studies. Mr. Noll is AV-rated and was a business and commercial trial lawyer for 22 years before turning to peacemaking. Doug is a founding board member of Mediators Beyond Borders, and the 2012 President of the California Dispute Resolution Council.

Noll is a Fellow of the International Academy of Mediators, a Distinguished Fellow of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators, a Diplomat of the California and National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, a core faculty member of the American Institute of Mediation, and on the American Arbitration Association panel of mediators and arbitrators. Mr. Noll was one of the first U.S. mediators certified under the international mediator standards established by the International Mediation Institute. Doug is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus, 2011), the winner of the international peace and justice book award. Doug Noll is a core faculty member of the American Institute of Mediation, a preeminent mediation Training Institute founded by Lee Jay Berman.

http://americaninstituteofmediation.com
Join Facebook at http://www.facebook/DouglasNoll. Visit http://www.elusivepeace.com. For interview and further information contact Inspired Media dianeden(at)centurytel(dot)net

Poor Conflict Resolution Skills Leads to Irreconcilable Differences

Douglas Noll, author of the award winning book Elusive Peace draws the correlation between the high number of couples who regret their divorces and a lack of peacemaking skills. The most common reason cited for divorce is irreconcilable differences-which Noll describes as a failure to understand conflict resolution skills. "Couples get to the point where they have differences they cannot reconcile. The lack of skill to solve problems is a major contributor in unresolved conflicts," Noll says.

Comedian and actor Russell Brand recently admitted that he regrets filing for divorce from his ex-wife pop artist Katie Perry, and wishes that he had tried harder to save his marriage. (www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2012/05/report_russell_brand_regrets_d.html)

Brand's sentiments all too often mirror a good majority of divorced couples. Noll points to statistic that show: "40% of divorced people regretted their divorce and thought it was preventable." (Australian and New Jersey studies. (William J. Doherty, PhD, Family Social Science Dept., University of Minnesota, Bdoherty(at)che2(dot)che(dot)umm(dot)edu).

"Couples in high conflict relationships who divorce are most often at a point in their relationship where they cannot negotiate successful resolutions to conflict. Locked in win/lose belief systems, relationships often suffer irreparable damage," Noll points out.

Flooded with emotion, high conflict couples reach that pinnacle of distress where separating seems the safest option," Noll explains. "Most people are unskilled in resolving conflict successfully. To negotiate peace in a high conflict situation where both parties are satisfied with the outcome is an area the average person is not schooled in. Unfortunately most couples learn how to argue and solve problems from their parents, and generational patterns show up in today's relationships," Noll explains, adding that "this failure to solve problems amicably and with skill regrettably sets up a poor example to children. Bullying and fighting becomes the norm."

"As a peacemaker and professional mediator the dispute resolution skills we teach not only benefit diplomats, corporations and communities. Couples who learn to embrace peacemaking skills learn emotional intimacy and pass this valuable tool to their children," Noll explains. Noll believes that peacemaking starts at home so that collaboration is the norm for solving problems and kids at home learn critical relationship building tools. "If we teach children at a young age healthy boundaries, good listening skills, and empathetic responses in communication, we will be raising a generation of adults who will make better decisions in issues involving our global community," Noll says.

"However, when any relationship reaches a critical point, a skilled mediator is key for getting both parties to work together again," Noll points out.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/15/prweb9501430.DTL#ixzz1v2nP8iHp

Untitled

Award winning Peacemaker Douglas Noll discovers brain function and peacemaking connection

While studying conflict resolution Douglas Noll discovered the scientific and neuropsychological reason negotiators fail at peace talks. "When I took modern scientific studies and transposed them onto past failed peace talks, the answers became clear. We have been using 18th century strategies in a 21st century world to resolve conflict. This led to writing Elusive Peace in the hope that diplomats, politicians and voters would use this information to become better informed and using the keys in my book shift from failure to success by employing professional mediation skills instead of outdated strategies that cause financial devastation and cost innocent lives," Noll explains.

• 

Douglas E. Noll Professional Mediator

The time has come to use what we know in resolving conflicts internationally, nationally, and personally

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) April 30, 2012

Douglas Noll, award winning author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflict (Prometheus, 2011) and award winning peacemaker, discovered the connection between brain function and peacemaking while studying conflict resolution strategies. This information contributed to the motivation to write his book and teach others his groundbreaking theories.
“Because we are 98 percent emotional and two percent rational, when people are in conflict, heightened emotions play a bigger role than rationality. Until people understand this, and begin to develop better skills and strategies to overcome natural tendencies to react, peace will remain elusive,” Noll explains, adding that “the problem of ongoing conflict exists in the international arena as well as between couples in relationships. Until there is understanding about brain function, people will continue to be stuck in a vicious cycle of ongoing and repeated conflict.”

While researching peacemaking Noll compared the failed peace negotiations of the past several
years and realized that the failure to create peace was due to outdated models of negotiating peace and not factoring in scientific studies that explain how the mind works in the context of conflict.
“I found that traditional military and diplomatic methods for resolving global conflicts cannot work. In Elusive Peace I show why with explanations ranging from neuropsychology to philosophy and political analysis,” Noll explains.

Noll’s body of work explains how diplomats enter negotiations with flawed assumptions about human behavior, sovereignty, and power, and shows that negotiators still use a model of European diplomacy dating back to the 18th century to solve the complex problems of the 21st century. Through numerous examples, the author shows that the key failure in current diplomatic efforts is the entrenched belief that nations, through their representatives, will act rationally to further their individual political, economic, and strategic interests. However, the contemporary scientific understanding of how people act and see their world does not support this assumption. On the contrary, research from decision-making theory, behavioral economics, social neuropsychology, and current best practices in mediation indicate that emotional and irrational factors often have as much, if not more, to do with the success or failure of a mediated solution.

“We must use professional and skilled mediators at negotiation tables around the world in areas of conflict to benefit from what we now know scientifically, and what we want to happen in peacemaking during a time when conflict worldwide is at an all time high and the threat of weaponry use is increasing,” Noll warns. For interview contact dianeden(at)centurytel(dot)net.

About Douglas Noll
Douglas Noll is the winner of the International Peace and Justice Book Award for Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts. Doug is the 2012 winner of the CLAY award for co-founding the pro bono project Prison of Peace. Doug is a keynote speaker and sought after leader in the field of international, domestic and business conflicts.
http://www.facebook/DouglasNoll.com
Doug is a founding board member of Mediators Beyond Borders, and the 2012 President of the California Dispute Resolution Council.

Noll is a Fellow of the International Academy of Mediators, a Distinguished Fellow of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators, a Diplomat of the California and National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, a core faculty member of the American Institute of Mediation, and on the American Arbitration Association panel of mediators and arbitrators. Mr. Noll was one of the first U.S. mediators certified under the international mediator standards established by the International Mediation Institute. Doug is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus, 2011), winner of the international peace and justice book award. Doug Noll is a core faculty member of the American Institute of Mediation, a preeminent mediation Training Institute founded by Lee Jay Berman. http://americaninstituteofmediation.com

Ex-CIA Counter Terrorist Talking About Iran on The Doug Noll Show

http://onlywire.com/r/79470039

The Hunger Games-Why Peacemakers Should Avoid This Movie

One of the great cultural barriers to peacemaking involves what Walter Wink, a brilliant theologian, has described as the Myth of Redemptive Violence. His idea is that our culture is based on violence as a means of bring order out of chaos. In other words, the only thing that works against evil is violence. Peacemaking becomes frightening because it does not seem strong enough to overcome evil. The insane box office success of The Hunger Games demonstrates the power of the Myth of Redemptive Violence in our culture.
The Myth of Redemptive Violence permeates our life. In its simplest form, it is found in children’s entertainment. An indestructible good guy opposes an irreformable and equally indestructible bad guy. Nothing can kill the good guy, though for most of the (comic book, television episode, movie, or novel) he suffers grievously. Somehow, the hero breaks free, vanquishes the villain, and restores order. Nothing finally destroys the bad guy or prevents his reappearance. Bruce Willis, in his post-Moonlighting television series career, made a financial fortune exploiting this myth in his Die Hard movies. Clint Eastwood did the same in his early spaghetti westerns and later as Dirty Harry, the rogue San Francisco cop. So has Disney and countless other entertainment stars and celebrities.
If you pay attention, you will see that the structure of the combat myth is faithfully repeated in The Hunger Games. Our heroine is Katniss Everdeen. Though she's only a teenager, she's a tough hunter who puts food on her family's table. Her father is dead and she lives with her mother and sister Prim in District 12 in the country of Panem, a brutally oppressive autocracy. Every year the Capitol of Panem hosts an event called the Hunger Games where two "tributes" – a boy and a girl – are drafted from each of the twelve districts to be brought to an arena and fight to the death. Only one person can win. Katniss volunteers when her little sister is chosen as the tribute from District 12.
The game starts when the 24 tributes are transported to the arena to fight it out. Katniss is on her own. Eventually, she is cornered by the big rich kids, the Career Tributes. She drops a deadly wasp nest on them and wins a bow and arrow in the process.
After this, Katniss teams up with Rue, a tiny girl from District 11 who reminds her of her sister Prim. Rue is killed by one of the Career Tributes. Katniss honors her body by covering it in flowers.
After Rue's death, the announcer changes the rules of the game: two people from a single district can now win. Katniss goes hunting for Peeta, the boy from her District, and eventually finds him. He is wounded and camouflaged in the muddy bank of a stream. She nurses him back to health and realizes that by playing up the romance angle, they can get gifts from sponsors.
Eventually, Katniss and Peeta must face off with Cato, the leader of the Career Tributes and the only other surviving tribute, but before that they are all pursued by wild dogs which are actually genetically mutated killing machines. Finally, Katniss shoots Cato and he falls into the pack.
The announcer comes back on and says the rules have changed back: only one winner allowed.
Katniss and Peeta can't kill each other, so they make a show of taking poisonous berries in an act of double suicide. The announcer comes back on before they can kill themselves, and says that they win.
Here's how the Myth of Redemptive Violence works: A superior force representing chaos attacks aggressively; the champion fights back, defensively, only to be humiliated in apparent defeat; the evil power satisfies its lust while the hero is incapacitated; the hero escapes, defeats the evil power decisively, and reaffirms order over chaos. The structure of the story cannot be altered. The evil antagonist does not simply lose more often; he must always lose. The good guys must always win. The only way peace is established is through violence.

In all of this, no premium is placed on reasoning, persuasion, negotiation, or diplomacy, not to mention peacemaking. Confession, repentance, apology, and forgiveness are alien concepts in this myth. Villains are never redeemed from their bondage to evil or restored to true humanity. The law is viewed as too weak to deal with pure evil. Hence the gunslinger in the Wild West or Dirty Harry of the inner city takes the law into his own hands. In the movies, John Rambo acts outside the law to achieve justice. Katniss kills and wins against overwhelming odds The heroic results she achieves justify the illegal acts he employs.

Let’s be real here. Redemptive violence is satisfying. The idea of watching a cartoon or movie about peacemaking simply does not satisfy us like a good dose of The Hunger Games. However, this cultural myth dominates our entertainment and our thinking about conflict and is a real barrier to world peace. In this way, the entertainment industry conditions us to violence as a means of restoring and preserving order in an evil world.

Meditation in Syria-MIssion Improbable

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

As a professional mediator, I am always encouraged by the use of mediation to resolve international conflicts. However, in the case of Syria, I have little confidence that mediation will bring peace to the conflict. Very few of the essential elements for successful mediation are present in this conflict.

The first consideration in convening any mediation is deciding who the parties at the table will be. In this case, the current Syrian government will certainly be a party. However, there does not appear to be a credible spokesperson for the rebels. One of the reasons that international support has not coalesced in support of the rebels like it did in Libya is because the rebels have not proven themselves capable of creating a coherent political force. Since mediation is about decision-making, we have to ask the question: "Who has the power to make binding decisions for the parties?" Obviously, the Syrian government can make decisions. Who, in the rebel group, can make binding decisions for the people that oppose the al Assad regime?

The Syrian National Council claims authority for the resistance against the al Assad regime. Burhan Galioun, a professor of political sociology at the Universite de Paris III Sorbonne University, was appointed as head of the SNC on August 29, 2011. However, Professor Galioun has made statements that are not universally shared by the various rebel factions. It is unlikely that either he or the Syrian National Council speaks for all factions.

One of the issues that plagues peaceful resolution of internal conflicts and civil wars is decision-making authority. It's one thing to mediate a dispute in a contested presidential election, when the disputants are easily recognized as political opponents. It's another thing altogether to mediate the dispute the between a fractious rebel group and an antagonistic government. The al Assad regime can rightfully ask by what authority to the representatives of the rebels come to the table? Any mediator taking on the Syrian problem will spend a considerable amount of time answering that question, and the entire enterprise will collapse if it is not answered thoroughly.

A related issue has to do with legitimizing the antagonists. In the 1970s, the protracted negotiations over the shapes of the tables and who would sit where in the US North Vietnam talks was about legitimizing primary parties at the table. In Syria’s case, the al Assad regime could protest participation of rebel representatives because allowing participation would confer unwanted legitimacy. At the outset, the mediator will have to be prepared to deal with challenges to legitimate participation by primary parties.

The people of Syria have the most at stake in any mediated talks. The mediator will have to consider how to make sure that the legitimate concerns of the people, which will include social and distributive injustices, political inclusion, economic reform, safety from violence and social stability. In this regard, the mediator may consider finding civil society representatives, including women, to participate as direct and primary participants. The mediator will have to secure the consent of the rebel representatives and the government representatives to share decision-making power with civil society representatives who otherwise would not have a voice in the process.

In addition to primary parties, mediation involves secondary parties. In the case of Syria, the secondary parties are numerous. They include Hamas, Iran, Russia and China, the US, Israel, and the EU, the Arab League, the UN, the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, and other conservative Islamic groups. All of these parties have vested and conflicting interests in the outcome of the Syrian conflict. All of these parties wish to influence the outcome to benefit their particular interests. They will be seeking direct participation at the table. If they are denied participation of the table, they will seek to influence the process in other ways, including as spoilers. The mediator will have to design a process that provides for secondary party participation and inclusion, but does not permit undue interference in the direct talks between the primary parties.

Assuming that agreements can be reached upon who will participate in the process, the mediator will be confronted with what is to be mediated. The superficial answer will be to mediate a political solution to the violence. However, that is grossly insufficient to bring about a lasting peace. As we have seen in Kenya, the superficial political solution has led to continued gross economic and social injustice, continued tribal conflict, and the essential shutdown of an effective government. The Sentinel Project observes that Kenya is ripe for genocide. (http://thesentinelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Risk-Assessment-Kenya-2011.pdf). I believe this is a direct result of the failure of the mediator to force Odinga and Kibaki to address serious structural injustices instead choosing to seek superficial political solutions through an ineffective and unworkable power-sharing arrangement.

The same problem exists in Syria, except that it is worse. Rather than mediating a contested presidential election, the mediator will have to end a civil war and deal with generations of abuse, injustice, and human rights violations. Burhan Ghalioun, the appointed head of the Syrian National Council, is skeptical of dialogue with the al Assad regime. “The regime is not interested in or willing to meet the requirements of a meaningful dialogue,” Ghalioun wrote. The opposition cannot join dialogue with “officials who contributed to or ordered the killing of defenseless children, women, and young people.” He has said that dialogue would be fruitless unless the clear objective was “to dismantle the regime of repression, oppression, and tyranny and replace it with a democratic order in which the people alone have the final say and the government is fully empowered and answerable to elected representatives of the people.”

Ghalioun believes that “dialogue should not mean a deal with the regime. It must not be about broadening the circle of participation” to members of the authorities; rather “it must be about a timetable for a transition to democracy by peaceful means, in the hope of avoiding more human casualties and material losses, and creating the necessary conditions for new institutions to be built and function properly.” To Ghalioun, the government leaders “lost their legitimacy” when they unleashed bloody violence against peaceful protesters.

From these statements, it is clear that if the mediator seeks a superficial political solution through power-sharing, without forcing the parties to confront the centuries old conflicts between the Alawites, the Sunnis, and the Syrian minorities, the mediation will make the situation worse, not better.

Thus, the mediator will be well advised to discuss what is to be mediated and to explore the potential range of outcomes that will be satisfactory to all of the participants. This exploration by itself will be time-consuming and exhausting as it will consist of a negotiation over what is to be negotiated. However, that is the work of the mediator and is to be anticipated and planned for.

Finally, does the mediator have the staying power that the Syrian mediation will require? In the Kenyan election crisis, the mediator abandoned the mediation process after six weeks and turned it over to another mediator who abandoned the process six weeks after that. There was no long-term plan for engagement and no plan for helping the parties resolve ongoing differences and conflicts. Will the mediator in the Syrian conflict be committed to the years it may take to bring peace to Syria? This is not a six week or six-month engagement. The intractability of the dispute and the ongoing violence suggests that a mediated negotiation might last for years. Even then, success will be problematic.

International conflict mediation has not been typified by exemplary mediation practice. Instead, most international conflict mediations have been ad hoc affairs conducted by diplomats and political envoys with little or no experience in decision making theory, conflict theory, neuro social psychology, behavioral economics, and a host of other disciplines that modern mediators study and practice. The Syrian conflict will call upon the deepest skills and reserves of the very best mediator. Even then, a peaceful resolution is improbable. I hope that the mediator considers some of these issues before he starts his work.

 

 

Douglas E. Noll is author of the award-winning book Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011). He may reached through the book website, www.elusivepeace.com.