Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries |
|
|
Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in |
|
|
|
Verbal Jujitsu This entry was posted on 3/14/2009 9:15 AM and is filed under Relationship Dynamics. The timbre of his voice conveyed intense emotion. He called because his wife suggested mediation. He’s interested but skeptical, insisting that she is inflexible about the issue most important to him. He says: I’ll only try mediation if she agrees in advance that she’s willing to share time with our children equally. Otherwise I’m filing for sole custody. I suspect anxiety about being denied this most precious connection is motivating his warning, but I urge him not to throw down the gauntlet. Threats beget threats. And often lengthy litigation. I learn they have been attempting to negotiate on their own. Their discussions even begin in a comfortable way, for they value each other as parents, but then frustration mounts over something said or a proposal made, and anger is triggered. Their reasonable discourse escalates into dueling ultimatums. Can these mutual efforts to intimidate just be ignored? Yes. Actually, that is probably the wisest course. Step aside. Verbal jujitsu. Most threats are born of fear, and it is the fear that needs to be explored and understood rather than the menacing words. But does that happen? Or, does the "fight or flight" response take over, precluding rational discourse? In the divorce mediation context, threats are legion. As here: I'll sue for custody before I ever accept one minute less than equal time with the children, or: I'll go to jail before I pay a dime of alimony, when you're the one who wants this, or: I'll disclose the pornography I found on your computer if you fight me on this point. If the sincere goal is to move a partner towards agreement, which it almost always is, responding to such statements made in the heat of the moment, only makes a later retreat more difficult. The parties need to buy time. Although I’ll not allow coercion of either party, I know that to oppose a threat head on, or to counter in kind, may well destroy the chance of settlement. There are other options. If sufficient calm prevails, we could discuss the possible consequences of the threatened action, and the party having issued the threat might then be drawn into a discussion about why they feel so strongly about the issue. But the degree of tension already generated may preclude either party being able to really listen to the other with understanding. If so, consider this option: acknowledge the strength of the feelings underlying the threat which has been made, and then move on to a discussion of an unrelated issue, allowing the passions of both parties to cool. Verbal jujitsu. This is the choice I usually make if the parties will accept the diversion. It is a choice individuals can make on their own, without announcement. The passage of time will likely allow for a return to reason, once the fear underlying the threat, usually of some loss or perceived loss, is acknowledged and addressed. And ideally, the threatened party will recognize that it is in their own best interest to allow the other to save face, by continuing to ignore, to step aside from the menacing words earlier spoken, so that both can refocus on what each hopes to achieve in the long term. |
|
|