Empowerment in dispute mediation: A critical analysis of discursive practices

In principle, mediators claim to empower disputants--but do they in practice? My approach to this question is based upon three interdependent assumptions: (1) mediation is a process of communication, (2) forms of life (identities, relationships, cultural patterns) are reflexively reproduced in communication, (3) empowerment is the appropriate elaboration or transformation of disputant forms of life. I apply this perspective to three cases by using Pearce and Cronen\u27s theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning. The first major finding of this study is that the mediators enacted their neutrality by allowing disputants to elaborate whatever autobiographical and relationship narratives were already in progress. This enactment of neutrality was empowering in the one case where disputants began with a positive connotation of their relationship; it was not empowering in the two cases where the disputants had negative interpretations. The second finding is that the mediators constructed disputants as two kinds of person: expressive individuals who talked in terms of moral-laden narratives, and utilitarian individuals who talked in terms of concrete proposals. In two of the cases, the mediators attempted to facilitate negotiation by separating the disputants\u27 dysfunctional narratives from their proposals. In both of these cases, the strategy was disempowering because it did not aid in the transformation of the dysfunctional narratives. In the third case, the disputants were empowered: their narratives were positive and productive, and the mediators did not attempt to bracket them and separate them from the negotiation. The third finding of this study is that mediators constructed success less in terms of their ability to work constructively with disputant definitions of episode, relationship, and autobiography, and more in terms of the disputants\u27 ability to reach an agreement. This definition of success makes the disputants responsible for their own empowerment, while mediator responsibility is limited to the proper enactment of the mediation episode. The results of this study carry implications for research. Since the final test of mediation values is their successful enactment in face-to-face interaction, we need more critical studies of the patterns of discourse in actual cases. There are also implications for mediation practice: mediators can take more responsibility for the empowerment of disputants by learning constructive ways of working with disputant forms of life