I ended my last entry with the homework about arguments. And that's how I want to continue here. The homework was evaluated at the beginning of the course. I found it remarkable that somebody said an argument is the expression of “suppressed” conflicts. This seems to be quite logical. I mean, I can carry a conflict with me around but don’t feel like expressing my disagreement. But it is also meant that those suppressed conflicts can “explode” and the argument is not about the actual conflict but only deals with something on the surface. Of course then a solution can not be achieved. Ms Müller threw the words “conflict culture” in which she contrasted to “arguments as fights without consensus”. The former can for example be watched on TV when politicians meet in a talk show. Those arguments are not spontaneous and finding a consensus is likely or (at least) possible. “Arguments as fights” are more spontaneous and thus the participants are rather unprepared. It is doubtful that an agreement is found which satisfies both sides.

But what now about changing one’s perspective? Of course in the last categorization changes of perspective are not so frequently. They need preparation and hence are found more in the “conflict culture”. But another observation can be made. Janine added that changing the perspective is more likely to occur afterwards. Of course, afterwards one is always smarter. –Probably everyone can confirm this. One suddenly has the best arguments but it is too late. When having time for preparation it is easier to think of possible arguments and also a prepared conflict tends to be more productive for both sides because the issues can be taken by their roots.

The next exercise was to make a brainstorming about “mediating”. I only remember that I contributed the explanation: “searching and creating commonness.” Tutor Christine drew a circle on the blackboard and in its center she wrote “Mediator.” The students could add their associations which she also wrote on the blackboard: depersonalizing conflicts; formulating questions; empathy; moderate; filter emotions; even-handed; instructing; giving the feeling of sympathy and competence.
After the theoretical aspect was (more or less) clear, we were allowed to test it practically. Volunteers were needed but (once again) everybody hesitated. I had mercy and went into the middle of the classroom. Two girls joined me in consequence. Well, before I went on the “stage” I had already an assumption what would follow: Two of us would argue and the mediator shall calm us down. Every one of us three got their instructions. I should be the boyfriend who is late at his appointment with his girl. She blames him for that and I should argue with her. But I think I had not really a basis for my arguments. The situation was for me difficult. What should I blame her for, it was definitely the boyfriends fault to come late, actually I agreed with her. Plus, I am not really someone who knows and tries to argue. So it all started. “Why are you late; we wanted to go to the cinema!” she said. How should I react? I tried to find excuses. The mediator approached. My conflict partner and I were not really allowed to listen to the others accuses and so we had to maintain our standpoint. Because it was so difficult for me and I ran out of serious arguments (which she didn’t seem to listen too), it became ridiculous for me and I admit… I exaggerated. “I met another girl and she was so beautiful, I just couldn’t pass her.” Of course nobody would admit this even if it was the case. Well, I got seriously stuck. She blamed me for not calling her for my delay. I tried to blame her for not worrying about me. (- An argument which I thought of really late!) Much later that afternoon, when I was out with my dog, I had the idea that actually the boyfriend could have been late because he tried to arrange a dinner with her as surprise in a restaurant. He wanted to make it very special and because of the pressure he forgot the time. But yea… afterwards one is always smarter like I said.

The second and third discussion was led by different people. The second was a scene in a living community about washing up. They played it really well and credible as if they would play themselves. But also the mediator did a good job. It was interesting to watch. The third situation was a group discussion with the class divided into supporters and opponents of study fees. But the topic is too big as that it could be solved first within the limited time and second by the mediator. Out of the two groups not more than two or three people were leading the discussion and the others seemed to agree in silence. I think the group discussion (25 vs. 25 people) was the hardest job for the mediator.

In how far this lesson will influence my further conflicts remains to be seen. So far I have not had the chance to practice it myself under real conditions. But in the next conflicts I will definitely try to become more aware of mediating. There is only one problem. The mediator has to be accepted. For example most of the conflicts are in family. Much before this lesson I used to try mediating within my family. But of course I had no success. Even if I tried to depersonalize certain arguments my parents did not listen and continued their way. The same problem might occur among deeper friends too. Therefore I am not really sure yet in how far “mediating” can be used in everyday situations because most conflicts occur in everyday life. On the other hand, when I see an argument between two strangers I would not in all cases intervene. Maybe it is because I think I should acquire more competence before I can become a professional mediator. And of course, the only way to do so is learning by doing. And if all this doesn’t help, we have in Germany a saying: “When two guys argue/fight, the bystander has a smile on its face. (Wenn zwei sich streiten, freut sich der dritte).” [sorry, don’t know if it is translated well :)]