I think that the idea of a mediator in the first place is a very interesting concept. I have heard of a mediator before in terms of working with conflict, but never did I think about it in the way that it is described in the book. I always seen it as someone who broke up conflict, which it is, but it happens to be way more than that. In the book it describes the role of a mediator in a much different view. When it is describing the role of the mediator they are not actually to resolve the problem. They are rather another person in the situation which makes the first two parties think more about what they are saying or their interaction. For example, when I thought about this in my own situation I thought this:
When I am fighting with my boyfriend we both may say hurtful things because we are angry. We are the only two actually hearing this conversation so sometime I tend not to really think about what I am saying. BUT when someone else is near us and we are fighting I tend to think about what I am going to say FIRST then construct it in a way that gets my point across in a respectful, clear, and understandable matter.
I wish that a mediator is something that I could have at every argument, but my goal is to try to think as if there is one there and maybe my thoughts, feelings, and frustrations will be communicated a lot more effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment