Too big to ignore – too dangerous to address?
This article is aimed at mediators and all those who work to resolve conflict but may struggle with “the real issue” not being openly talked about. In light of the Paris attacks as well as all other recent terrorist activity across the globe we probably face an increase in prejudice against those who openly follow Islam in the near future (I originally titled this article “Is it because I’m a Muslim“). This I believe will be at the root of many conflicts and disputes. However, since religious freedom is protected by law in many countries, oftentimes it will not be talked about openly and replaced by other reasons. I hope this article will raise some important questions for professionals as well as to help identify potential elephants in other contexts.
What is an elephant in the room and why are they relevant to conflict resolution?
Religion, race, class, gender, disability, and so many other topics often sit with us in a room. They become particularly important when there is a dispute that people seek to resolve. These topics are often the underlying issue in a conflict and they influence what we do, how we behave and what we openly say and don’t say. They sometimes leave little room to manoeuvre or even breathe yet often they are not being spoken about. One may wonder why this issue sitting in the room like a big elephant is not being addressed.
Consider the example of a landlord in dispute with their tenants. They state a petty matter as the root of the dispute while the real reason may be that they feel uncomfortable with different cultures, beliefs or out of prejudice or racism (“Is it because I’m black?”), yet the tenant’s race and freedom of religion are protected by law.
These sensitive topics often are or are being made invisible despite being very relevant to the issue in need of resolution. Often they are hard to ignore, yet also very uncomfortable or perhaps even dangerous to address. As a result mediators frequently encounter avoidance or denial being present in one or all of the parties. Carey states that “[i]t takes an outside crisis to break the denial” (Carey, 2007, p.6). That is why elephants are so relevant in the mediation room.
Questions to ask yourself
Avoidance and denial often look identical from the outside. Therefore mediators need to be able to identify their presence and how to differentiate between them. In case the elephant in the room gets addressed, a person who is consciously avoiding an issue can accept the invitation to talk about it. A person who is in denial on the other hand might face serious psychological consequences as a result.
The more important question is whether or not to make an effort to address the elephant at all because, if acknowledged, the party or parties are likely to be confronted with a degree of emotional reaction that the mediator might not feel comfortable or capable of dealing with (depending on his or her level of psychological training and perception of their role). Avoidance and especially denial are mechanisms that are usually established for a very good reason: to protect the self from (public) embarrassment, conflict of character or values, fear of physical or psychological damage or simply to avoid anxiety as a result of not knowing what it might lead to.
Are we as mediators in a justified position to try and break these defences? Shouldn’t we respect the party’s wish not to talk about it? Are we not doing a bad job when we fail to address the underlying issue of a conflict? Can we acknowledge that there is an issue and invite the party to address it or might that open the floodgates for a person who was in denial?
Regardless of your ethical position on this, it not rarely requires hours of coaching if not years of therapy to achieve getting a party to acknowledge the elephant to a degree that can be useful to the mediation and hence addressing a deep-seated avoidance or denial issue does not fit into the setting of a mediation.
What to do with elephants as a mediator?
This results in the question of how we deal with a situation whereas we spotted the assumed underlying issue of the conflict, yet nobody wants to talk about it – or even worse – one party makes it the sole point for argumentation and the other denies its existence or relevance to the dispute at hand. The mediator will experience a sense of frustration as a result of not being able to do his/her job (facilitate settlement through identifying and addressing the underlying issues).
While most mediators are trained to deal with their own sense of frustration, a much more critical factor is the potential damage to the relationship between mediator and parties in situations when one party is reluctant or unable to address important issues towards the mediator.
In the case of avoidance the party might also avoid other relevant topics in fear it might lead to the elephant. As a result the party will generally be less focused since a lot of mental energy is spent on the avoidance process. The mediator will naturally try to unpack the underlying issue and hence the client will feel threatened and pressured without being able to express why.
On the other hand the mediator might notice that the party in avoidance or denial does not wish or is not able to address the issue identified by the mediator as relevant to the conflict and respect that. Yet this might result in a loss of the opposing party’s respect for the mediator’s skills since “the problem is obvious and it is the mediator’s job to address it for me”.
What is an elephant in the room and why are they relevant to mediators?
Religion, race, class, gender, disability, and so many other topics often sit with us in a room. They become particularly important when there is a dispute that people seek to resolve. These topics are often the underlying issue in a conflict and they influence what we do, how we behave and what we openly say and don’t say. They sometimes leave little room to maneuver or even breathe yet often they are not being spoken about. One may wonder why this issue sitting in the room like a big elephant is not being addressed.
Consider the example of a landlord in dispute with their tenants. They state a petty matter as the root of the dispute while the real reason may be that they feel uncomfortable with different cultures, beliefs or out of prejudice or racism (“Is it because I’m black?”), yet the tenant’s race and freedom of religion are protected by law.
These sensitive topics often are or are being made invisible despite being very relevant to the issue in need of resolution. Often they are hard to ignore, yet also very uncomfortable or perhaps even dangerous to address. As a result mediators frequently encounter avoidance or denial being present in one or all of the parties. Carey states that “[i]t takes an outside crisis to break the denial” (Carey, 2007, p.6). That is why elephants are so relevant in the mediation room.
Questions to ask yourself
Avoidance and denial often look identical from the outside. Therefore mediators need to be able to identify their presence and how to differentiate between them. In case the elephant in the room gets addressed, a person who is consciously avoiding an issue can accept the invitation to talk about it. A person who is in denial on the other hand might face serious psychological consequences as a result.
The more important question is whether or not to make an effort to address the elephant at all because, if acknowledged, the party or parties are likely to be confronted with a degree of emotional reaction that the mediator might not feel comfortable or capable of dealing with (depending on his or her level of psychological training and perception of their role). Avoidance and especially denial are mechanisms that are usually established for a very good reason: to protect the self from (public) embarrassment, conflict of character or values, fear of physical or psychological damage or simply to avoid anxiety as a result of not knowing what it might lead to.
Are we as mediators in a justified position to try and break these defences? Shouldn’t we respect the party’s wish not to talk about it? Are we not doing a bad job when we fail to address the underlying issue of a conflict? Can we acknowledge that there is an issue and invite the party to address it or might that open the floodgates for a person who was in denial?
Regardless of your ethical position on this, it not rarely requires hours of coaching if not years of therapy to achieve getting a party to acknowledge the elephant to a degree that can be useful to the mediation and hence addressing a deep-seated avoidance or denial issue does not fit into the setting of a mediation.
What to do with elephants as a mediator?
This results in the question of how we, as mediators, deal with a situation whereas we spotted the assumed underlying issue of the conflict, yet nobody wants to talk about it – or even worse – one party makes it the sole point for argumentation and the other denies its existence or relevance to the dispute at hand. The mediator will experience a sense of frustration as a result of not being able to do his/her job (facilitate settlement through identifying and addressing the underlying issues).
While most mediators are trained to deal with their own sense of frustration, a much more critical factor is the potential damage to the relationship between mediator and parties in situations when one party is reluctant or unable to address important issues towards the mediator.
In the case of avoidance the party might also avoid other relevant topics in fear it might lead to the elephant. As a result the party will generally be less focused since a lot of mental energy is spent on the avoidance process. The mediator will naturally try to unpack the underlying issue and hence the client will feel threatened and pressured without being able to express why.
On the other hand the mediator might notice that the party in avoidance or denial does not wish or is not able to address the issue identified by the mediator as relevant to the conflict and respect that. Yet this might result in a loss of the opposing party’s respect for the mediator’s skills since “the problem is obvious and it is the mediator’s job to address it for me”.
References:
Carey, J. (2007, November 20). Denial Makes the World Go Round. New York Times. last retrieved on 16th November 2015 at http://sanacacio.net/bencarey/Denial.pdf
Zerubavel, E. (2007). The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press.
