Hindu Thought and Mediation

I am a transformative mediator and an interculturalist, or one who has studied communication across cultures.  Because of my life experiences living in India and within a Hindu family, I have a strong interest in how there are comparisons and areas of agreement between Hindu thought and my own practice of transformative mediation. As I began comparing transformative mediation to Hindu metaphysical philosophy, I started to analyze the transformative process with a unique perspective. Below are some of the areas I found agree with the mediation and in particular transformative mediation.

First, Mediation, and particularly transformative mediation, is an opportunity for samvaad (English translation: conversation).  When people in conflict enter into dialogue, they have an opportunity to hear one another.  But, to enter into dialogue means opening oneself to anekantvad – the state of openness to all possibilities.  When we leave the realm of black and white, of right and wrong, and open ourselves to the possibility of different perspectives on the same problem, then we are able to listen to others.  Often, it is the listening and recognition of understanding that is the beginning of a resolution.  It is the first step in building a bridge. Transformative mediation in fact defines conflict as a breakdown of human interaction.  That is, the samvaad is broken down.  The belief is that this state of breakdown can be mitigated by helping the parties find resolution and open themselves to what each other is offering.

Often the parties enter into a process of conciliation.  The process of conciliation begins kshama – to forgive and seek forgiveness.  The process of conciliation is not the aim of the transformative mediation dialogue, however.  The aim of dialogue is to enable the parties to understand each other and to understand their basic humanity.  Through the process parties are able to shift their perspective, take accountability for their actions and often offer solutions to solve the impasse that divides them.

Mediation is not a new process or even a Western process.  It stems from ancient knowledge and technique.  In India, the same techniques have been used within the strong, joint family system when an elder listens separately to each young one’s desperate complaints and suggests alternative solutions to help bring them together.  It is also used in village gatherings like the Lok Adalat.  In the traditional Lok Adalat system, all sides are listened to by the village elders, but no resolution is proposed.  Rather, the parties themselves shift their view as a result of being “heard” by the elders.  Shifts are subtle and are encouraged by the way the elders manage the conflict dialogue.  The system itself recognizes that having one’s own thoughts and feelings heard is the beginning of opening up a channel to hear others.

As we move into a world outside the village and away from our extended family, however, mediation becomes an alternative way to reconnect when we find ourselves in conflict.  It provides a means to bridge the gap that grows wider as the conflict progresses.

That is not to say that mediation always ends conflict.  There are times when the conflict is too deep.  There are also times when the conflict is an indicator that the relationship is not one that promotes growth or peaceful living.

Mediation is also a process for the disenfranchised who don’t have the luxury of a strong family or economic security.  I once asked a mediator in Cleveland, Ohio how he decided to become a mediator.  He had been working with troubled youth who often were victims of an inadequate foster care system.  He told me he witnessed his first mediation as a support for one of his youths.  As he watched the mediation take place, he was in awe of how this youth was listened to – for the first time in his life.  He said the result of the process was a meaningful change in the youth’s behavior.  The young man was able to begin to change his life and to start to act more responsibly.  These youth went on to go to college and to have a family.

I thought about the cases I had witnessed.  I did not have the luxury of knowing how mediation had changed any of the people I had as clients in a mediation session.  I could remember cases, however, that touched my life.  I remembered a young man and his family from Vietnam.  The mediation was between this youth, his family, and the truancy officer.  The youth had been missing school.  He explained how other kids had called him “Chinaman.”  In his Vietnamese culture, being called Chinese was an insult.  He didn’t want to go back to school and be insulted again.  His father, who was present in the mediation, was powerless to go to the school to explain because he was unable to express himself in English.  The son translated for his father.  A second session was scheduled that included some of the young men who were teasing the Vietnamese youth.  They heard how their behavior made him feel.  They explained that they had called him “Chinaman” because they liked him and wanted to include him.  It was the first time they understood how the impact of their behavior made him feel. The result of the mediation was a new relationship for the Vietnamese boy and his friends. A follow up on this mediation session showed he was attending school, getting good grades, and fitting in well.

In another mediation session, a young man had threatened a friend with a nine-millimeter gun.  He acted out of frustration and pain from being taunted that his father was a drug addict.  He mourned the loss of his father to drugs and did not want to hear negative things said about his father.  The conversation helped his friends understand him better and helped him understand them and why they were acting in this way.  In the end they apologized to one another.  They agreed to be friends and learned the importance of really talking to one another.

In yet another case two women were fighting.  They had said things in their public housing neighborhood that made them upset with one another.  One of the women had become angry when the other woman did not look at her or talk to her.  She had started yelling and then throwing eggs at the woman’s door.  She put trash in the woman’s front door.  When they talked, they realized that it was a simple misunderstanding.  The woman had been depressed and disturbed about her own life circumstances – so she stopped talking.  The other woman needed her friendship but felt left out and slighted when she thought she was ignored.  In the end, they realized in their poverty they needed each other.  One of the women said, “We need to be friends.  When we are in line at a grocery store, we need to be able to look back and say, ‘I don’t have change to buy this food.” And then I can give you help – give you change – so you can eat that night.”  They knew how important it was to have a connection – it meant the difference between eating one night or going hungry.  It meant having someone else to share the pain when times are bad.

That is why I am dedicated to being a mediator.  I see people make a transition.  I see them change from fighting to connection.  It gives me hope that there can be peace in the world.  In the end none of us can make it alone.  All of us need one another.  It is the small gestures that make it happen.  We are all one. When any one of us is suffering, all of us suffer.  Each of us is an extension of the other.  It takes only a moment to see that no one is really alone.