Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and mediators generally agree that persuading the disputing parties to agree to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand can be difficult—sometimes the most difficult part. Once seated, conversation ensues, and the mediators begin to facilitate. More often than not, concerned parties are then able to negotiate (sometimes resolve) their differences and move forward.
Mediation is unique because its practitioners are impartial and neutral (in theory), in that they are not advocating on behalf of one party or resolution; facilitating communication is what they do. By asking thoughtful questions and exploring common interests and needs, mediators are able to create a space for new ways of looking at a dispute that was previously perceived as intractable.
Comfortable chairs are placed around the table, and each mediator brings with them whatever they believe will create an environment hospitable to open conversation. And of course, coffee, tea, and water are offered.
Having studied and practiced Conflict Analysis & Resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution, I was reminded why I’m a coffee shop and “third place” junkie even if the coffee is so-so when I read Joe McCarthy’s blog post about coffee, conversation, and community. He writes that, “people’s openness to serendipitous encounters with potentially consequential strangers in coffeehouses is highly variable.” I can’t agree more.
Of the many things that distinguishes mediation from legal proceedings is that concerned parties have the option to leave the table at any time; it’s voluntary. Unless mediation is mandated by a court, the decision to sit down at a table with a disputant generally suggests a degree of uncertainty, an openness towards change, to hear the other parties’ point of view—an openness towards difference. Chris Falzon writes:
Let me say a few more things about this attitude of openness to the other. As has been noted, it implies an attitude of respect towards otherness, a willingness to let the other speak and to listen seriously. By the same token, it also means an abandonment of the security, the comfort, that comes with an all embracing view of the world where the other is completely mastered and predictable. It means promoting risk, instability, uncertainty, and the possible transformation of prevailing principles and forms of life.
Coffee shops are kind of like mediation centers; they both offer coffee and provide a relatively open space for people to talk with each other. Like mediation, you can also leave the table and walk away. The difference is that the conversations in coffee shops are not mediated unless you’re attending something like a Conversation Café where a host moderates conversation. And discussing divisive issues doesn’t necessarily happen at coffee shops where you can avoid talking with people (friends or strangers) about points of view that strongly differ from you own. In his Is Starbucks Killing Community blog post, David Warlick writes:
… I find it too easy and appealing to connect exclusively to people who agree with my world view. Engaging in conversations within like-minded communities might even lead me to feel so passionately about my positions that I could become less sensitive to the positions of others on the occasions that I find myself in contact with them, behaving with less civility than I should.
The problem is not the Internet, WiFi, or even Starbucks. The problem is us. We simply need to learn and embrace the fact that NOTHING IS SIMPLE.
The more people listen to and talk with others whose opinions differ from their own, the more complex issues can become; more nuances are brought to the surface and the grayness of an issue comes to light. Complexifying (you won’t find this word in the dictionary) issues can bring people towards the middle (not necessarily to it), away from the extremes.
Some people go out of their way to talk with people who share different points of view, for they desire to learn about what is unfamiliar to them; they’re open to and seek opportunities for strangers to become consequential. Consequential in the sense that they can become friends or simply affect one’s opinion. But this doesn’t happen all the time. It takes a conscious effort and/or a catalyst. Kevin Marks writes:
The key .. is finding people who play the role of conversational catalyst within a group, to welcome newcomers, rein in old hands and set the tone of the conversation so that it can become a community … The communities that fail, whether dying out from apathy or being overwhelmed by noise, are the ones that don’t have someone there cherishing the conversation, setting the tone, creating a space to speak, and rapidly segregating those intent on damage.
Are you a conversational catalyst? Do you find yourself attracted to coffee shops because you’re open to conversation? Do you find some coffee shops more conducive to conversation than others? Please share.
2 Comments
One of the main themes running through my book, “Consequential Strangers” is to seek diversity. Coffee shops are “being spaces” — places where relationships can unfold. I’m glad that there is a growin consciousness, especially on the Internet, of this need to connect with people–and to include people who are different from you. Thanks for the post!
@Melinda Blau The Internet / social media culture seems to thrive on drawing upon human difference—being open towards it. Creative efforts don’t emerge where all who are participating in the process share similar points of view. I attended a Social Media Club Seattle event a few days ago, and the open culture I generally observe online was in fact transferring offline. Everyone was talking with each other, curious as to what others are working on… as it applies to social media. It was great to see and be a part of.