PREVENT, RESOLVE, CONTAIN: A STORY OF THREE BROTHERS
Lately, I have come to believe that we in the field have been thinking way
too small. We've been thinking that it was enough to resolve disputes,
particularly if it is done in whatever is our way of doing that. I am now
coming to see mediation as part of a broad spectrum of collaborative
processes. It is now easier to appreciate that just mediating and thinking
of ourselves as mediators may be limiting of the opportunities and
realizations of those with whom we work. And it may also be limiting of
our career opportunities. Perhaps with a slight shift in orientation, we
can think and speak more comprehensively about what we are doing. This
will, in time, enrich what we are doing for the benefit of all concerned.
This little story is food for thought along those lines.
This story is of a Chinese doctor, some 2,000-3,000 years ago, renowned as
a physician and for his skill and knowledge of medicines and his ability
to heal even the most deadly disease, he was asked why he was so much
better than is two brothers, who were also doctors. His answer:
My first brother heals sickness before it even develops, so his methods
appear hidden, his science is an art form and he is known only within our village. My
second brother deals with illnesses while they are minor, preventing
sickness from getting worse and returning the body to health. I deal with
sicknesses when they have reached the level of disease and threaten to
destroy the organism of which they are a part. This requires numerous
medicines, and skill and knowledge in their use. For this reason my name
has become famous throughout the kingdom and I have been asked to be
physician to the king. Yet my first brother has the knowledge to deal with
sicknesses before they arise and my second brother is able to treat them
at an early stage and prevent them getting worse. Though my fame has
spread throughout the land, their knowledge is greater.
In Searching for Peace, the Road to TRANSCEND, Johann Galtung and
co-authors cite chapter and verse showing mediation's failures in
international conflicts - sometimes because of not having the right people
at the table; sometimes because of power plays by the strong. They told
this story of 3 doctors, in order to draw the analogy to conflict (gender
and phraseology tweaked):
The first brother, the first sister, are able to deal with conflicts
before they arise. Their knowledge is of the harmony of the world and
relationships, and the art of the work is in keeping that harmony in
balance, recognizing patterns and structures that may lead to conflict,
and transforming them, using the energy in conflict to create constructive
and enriching relationships which benefit the parties involved and in this
way, humanity. Their knowledge is knowledge of peace and of health, and
their skill is in recognizing early, what might disturb the balance and
harmony on which health is based.
The second brother and the second sister are able to deal with conflicts
while they are still small: to recognize them at an early stage, before
they escalate, and to work to transform the conflict and return the
parties and in this way, the body of humankind, to health. They have
knowledge of peace and conflict, and their energy is directed towards the
sickness, not the health, of the system; towards alleviating pain,
suffering, conflict, and strengthening the harmony and peace that has been
disturbed.
The third brother and the third sister's knowledge is not of health of the
body of human kind, nor the harmony of social relations. Their knowledge
is of dis-ease. Their skill lies in overcoming the dis-ease and in this
way, ending the affliction of the body of human-kind, in dealing with
large-scale conflicts, removing the causes and symptoms.
The book continues: "Each of these has far more knowledge and wisdom than
is generally applied by most modern mediators, and each heals with both
the body of humanity and the sickness, though to varying degrees. . .
Modern mediators and negotiators often have knowledge of neither the body
nor the disease that afflicts it. Their task . . . is to 'bring the
parties to the table' and to make sure that they come to an agreement.
Often this does not deal with the underlying cause of the conflict, or the
traumas and suffering it has given rise to. The focus here is not on
healing, on restoring the body of human-kind to harmony, but on bringing
about a cease-fire (ending the symptoms without addressing the causes of
the disease). They open the space for healing, but do not do the healing
of themselves. And as they fail to cooperate with or even recognize the
capacity of traditional and cultural approaches to conflict
transformation, they treats the 'patient' as a victim rather than as an
actor. The relationship is a hierarchical one - the doctor
(expert)/patient (victim)."
Galtung, Jacobsen and Brand-Jacobsen propose a new relationship:
"doctor/patient / patient/doctor, where both are doctor and both are
patient, both with the capacity to heal and something that needs healing.
The myth of neutrality, of 'scientific objectivity', is overcome. Both are
recognized as part of the relationship. . . . Beyond doctor/patient,
opening up the door to the community, to local practices, wisdom and
knowledge, . . . approaching [the conflict] from many different
perspectives and recognizing the many different roles and levels of
activity necessary for transforming a relationship from conflict the
destroyer to conflict the creator.
BACK |NEXT
