Informal fallacies in our society have cornered us to make us false choices.  It is either black or white, you are wrong and I am right.  It is the old game of “either/or” instead of “both/and”.  As most of us know, but few are willing to divulge, life is a much more nuanced blurry grey.

The article “Barrack Obama: A Mediator or a Leader” would lead you to believe that being a mediator or a leader is mutually exclusive.  Are their differences between the two Yes.  Are all leaders mediators?  No.  Are all mediators leaders.?  Absolutely not.  Can you be both a mediator and a leader.? Certainly, without question or doubt.

It is exactly this sort of divisiveness that Senator Obama is preaching against.

Therefore, you do not have to make a choice between mediator and leader, with Senator Obama with have the best of both worlds.

by Gene Gene (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:49:57 PM

  (0+)

Gene Gene, thanks for your comment.  In general, I would agree that being a mediator or being a leader are not mutually exclusive.   However, to my knowledge, Barack Obama has not demonstrated a past pattern of leadership.  Clearly, he has demonstrated a past pattern of being a mediator and compromiser.  Actually, from what I've heard him say, he emphasizes his ability to compromise, and he asserts his compromising as a desirable form of progress.  Maybe it's me, but I don't see how people can be inspired by the concept of splitting differences and compromising.  Please enlighten me as to how Barack Obama has demonstrated leadership.  Thank you.

Pensereo 

by Pensereo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 6 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:15:32 PM

  (0+)

Dear Pensereo:   

It's good that you recognize along with Gene Gene that leadership and mediation ability are not mutually exclusive.  

 Unfortunately many people use the word mediation to indicate compromise or perhaps even weakness in negotiating.  I agree that compromises are often negative for both or all parties in that they may have to give up at least part of what they want.  

 But mediation is much more.  The main skill in mediation is listening to understand the basic interests of others especially adversaries and potential enemies.   Understanding does imply agreement or conceding -- only understanding.  Good mediators and communicators listen not only so they can understand , but so they can show the other party that they truly "get" their interests and  positions.

 One of the ideal outcomes of mediation, after both parties understand the other, is that they often get both get what they want.. the classic "win-win" outcome.  Mediation doesn't focus so much on accentuating differences (although real differences must be acknowledged) but on common interests and creative ways of attaining them.   Most, but not all, people and governments want things like peace, prosperity, fairness, a clean environment, etc.   

 Mediators are not at all like judges or arbitrators as you imply.  Their main value is that the parties themselves self-determine any voluntary agreement or outcome.  That way the parties have not been coerced or threatened into agreeing.. they "buy in " to their own agreement , and therefore are much more like to hold to the agreement they have made.

 As a reformed arbitrator, I have learned that most parties in disputes do not need my suggestions or wisdom.  And most importantly the mediation process actually works most of the time (when the parties are willing to come to the table)yes sometimes this takes patience and sometimes no agreements are reached-- only better understanding.

 Obama and others who favor mediation are not trying to sell us out or make us suffer... their goal is better understanding of friends and opponents and the challenge of exploring mutually acceptable solutions in a difficult world. 

 Some of our "leaders" have used might and threat effectively to cow other people and nations into complying with us.  In the present world, the power card is less likely to be played effectively.  I am happy that Obama has mediation in his tool box of domestic and international negotiation, but more importantly I hope that all of our leaders and those in other nations will at least consider the opportunity to have productive dialog that can benefit us all.

As faras your request for evidence of Obama's leadership,  that seems less a request for a comparitive listing of the accomplishments of the 3 viable candidates than it is your assessment in the context of whomever you are supporting for president.  How about selling mediation to your candidate whomever he or she! may be.

 Best wishes,  Alan 

by Alan Gross (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:48:43 PM

  (0+)

Thank you Alan Gross for your thoughtful comments.  I now see that my use of the word "mediation" may have been too narrow.  When I discussed my perception of Obama as a mediator, I did not have your broad concepts in mind.  In this respect, I don't know if Obama, himself, has your broad concepts in mind.  I don't know if in fact Obama is a trained mediator.  

     That being aside, please answer me this.  Could a trained mediator have mediated a "four-fifths" Constitutional slavery outcome, as I stated in my article.   Also, could a trained mediator have mediated a compromise Thirteenth Amendment whereby some slavery was abolished, but not all slavery was abolished, as I stated in my article.  That is my key point, semantics aside.  

Thank you.  

Pensereo 

by Pensereo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:39:55 PM

  (0+)

Dear Pensereo:

Thanks for recognizing that mediation is a lot more than compromising.  I do not know Obama's mediation credentials but hope that his view of mediation, like mine and most mediators, focusses on listening and understanding, not necessarily agreement.  My hopes are not limited to Obama but to all leaders and potential leaders of our great country who will determine much of our future and the world's future.

Your comment about the 4/5 compromise (I think you meant the 3/5 compromise) implies that this result was not a good or humane one.  I agree, but mediators do not determine the content  of what the parties decide.  A facilitative mediator strives to control the process by which one or more parties voluntarily determine whether they wish to agree or not agree on an issue at controversy or mutual concern.  The principle is that when differing parties make an agreement of their own free will, they will be more like to accept and comply with it.   When two or more parties collude to adversely affect a third party ( such as the American slaves), most ethical mediators or judges, who often "so order" mediated agreements, would not validate such an agreement, and/or would try to involve all stakeholders in the dialog.

While you may be making a political statement critical of Obama's mediation philosophy as you interpret it, I am advocating mediation, by Obama and others, as a way to improve our foreign and domestic policy, to improve and repair relationships, and to preserve peace.  Power and threats are more typical instruments of foreign policy but are much more dangerous in the long run.   If Obama has started this discussion, that is a good thing and I hope that others flatter him with imitation.

 Alan  

by Alan Gross (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:53:10 PM

  (0+)

 
     Hello, Alan.  Thanks for your previous comment. 

       I searched Google.com for the following search
statement: "Alan Gross" mediation.  From it, I learned that you
are a very prominent person in your field.  In this respect, thanks for
taking time for your thoughtful attention. 

       However, I am still looking for answers to questions which I
think relate to two fundamentally distinct paradigms:  mediation
and leadership. 

      Out the outset, I recognize that they need not
be mutually exclusive.  They may include "this and/or that" (the
Boolean OR).  They need not be "only this or only that" (the
Boolean Exclusive OR). 

     Please consider this hypothetical situation. 

     Imagine you are asked to be a mediator in the discussions
that occurred before the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to
the U. S. Constitution in which slavery was abolished. 

     Imagine that on one side of the table sits the Status Quo
people for the states that have not already abolished slavery.
They want to keep two conditions the same: 
     a. the scope of slavery itself to continue in those
states as the status quo; that is, in all states that have not
already
abolished slavery, men, women, and children can be slaves; and
     b. in those states that have not already abolished
slavery, the 3/5 fraction of the slavery population to continue
to be considered for various purposes. 

     Imagine that on the other side of the table sit, let's
say, Abolitionists.  They want the following new condition to be
established: 
     a.  a new scope with respect to slavery; that is, the
abolition of slavery in all states in the U. S.; and
     b.  as a result, the issue of the 3/5 fraction of the
slavery population to be considered for various purposes would
become moot.  Stated alternatively, they want all of the previous
slave population to be counted as a 5/5 fraction (meaning all) to
be considered in the future for various purposes. 

     With mediation and with you being the mediator, my
questions are: 
     1.  Would a likely outcome of the mediation be
some sort of compromise with respect to the scope of slavery in
the states that have not already abolished slavery?  Here are a
few possible compromises with respect to the scope of slavery.
Perhaps abolish slavery for men, but retain slavery for women.
Perhaps abolish slavery for adults, but retain slavery for
children.  Perhaps abolish slavery for children born in the
future, but retain slavery for those persons who are already
alive. 

     2.  Would a likely outcome of the mediation be a new
fraction, a middle of the road fraction, a 4/5 fraction of the
slave population be considered for future purposes? 

     My guess answers to those questions are: 
     a.  some compromise with respect to the scope of slavery
would be reached; and
     b.  a compromise 4/5 fraction of the slave population
would be reached. 

  Do you agree with my guessed answers?. 

     From my dealings with people over the years, I have known
people who do in fact NEED mediation.  Let's call them opposite-
position advocates.    

     Also, over the years, I have met people who need and want
to be LED.  That is, for whatever reasons, they want someone
besides themselves to advocate and lead them in a particular
direction. I suspect that many persons in the masses of people
who attend political rallies, to see a candidate up close and
personal, are in that category. 

     In a sense, I think, some such persons are like children
who want their parents to lead them and to protect them and take
care of them.  One word used in this respect is LEADERSHIP.
That's what they want.  Maybe it's me, but that's what I have not
seen in Barack Obama. 

by Pensereo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:58:57 PM

  (0+)

Dear Pensereo:

 I agree with your Boolean OR in that "mediation" and "leadership" are largely independent concepts and are not even oppositional.  It is possible that an effective leader can incorporate effective mediation skills into his/her toolbox.  However,  it is unlikely that the kind of leader you describe -- one that advocates for others who are childlike and unwilling or unable to advocate for themselves -- will do much mediating.

Your example of mediation involving abolitionists v. slaveholders is interesting, but it is unrelated to mediation as practiced by me and facilitative or transformative colleagues.  Mediators do not attempt to influence options or solutions; in fact they rarely if ever give advice or make suggestions.  The self-determination principle which works in mysterious and efficient ways, prescribes that the mediation facilitates dialog but that the parties determine outcomes.

 For some serious or even intractable disputes, mediation does not work.  Bernard Mayer in his influential 2004 book Beyond Neutrality discusses situations where mediation is not the prefered method of resolving disputes.  Sometimes this becomes clarified only after the parties have come to the table.  Even when no agreement is obtained, mediation almost always leads to a better understanding and clarification of interests and positions. 

I agree that some people prefer the kind of leadership you are referring to.  A few people even strongly prefer someone else to lead them and they seek the kind of security discussed by Erich Fromm in Escape from Freedom in his chlling account of how many German people succumbed to the leadership of Hitler.  I certainly don't mean to imply that strong leaders are evil -- leadership often has great positive value.

Perhaps the Boolean confusion is related to the perception that leadership is related to strength and power, whereas mediation is  seem as a weaker means of working though relationships whether domestic vis a vis Congress and opposing politicians, or international vis a vis other national leaders.  My belief is that a part of strong leadership involves the mediation skills of listening and then letting the other party know they are understood.  One reason for this strategy is that when the opposing or other party feels understood they are less likely to repeat positions and demands and more likely to listen themselves.  Identifying common  interests and win-win solutions are important goals of mediation, but the mediator only faclitates which is a kind of leading.

Although I do not agree with your assessment of Obama, my  opinion (and yours) are probably based less on a careful rational assessment of his behavior and accomplishments and more on our existing and somewhat emotional positions.   It would be nice if people reached conclusions including political choices based on facts and analysis.  However it has been shown that most of us marshall and select facts to bolster what we already believe.  I decided to support Obama only recently and one of the reasons for my support is that I appreciate his openness to mediation-type principles.  If Clinton or McCain are elected, they will be my president and yours and I would guess that neither of us will pack up and leave the country  -- instead we'll continue to lobby and advocate for what we believe will make this a great, united, and peaceful country and world.

 Best Alan 

 Best wishes,  Alan

by Alan Gross (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM

  (0+)

Thank you, Alan, for your latest comment. I will see if my local library has the books you mentioned. They sound very interesting. Best wishes to you, and I hope the outcome of the election will be one we are all comfortable with. If we are not comfortable, so be it. We've endured the last 7 years, and we'll endure in the future.

Regards,

Pensereo

by Pensereo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 6 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:43:36 PM

  (0+)