Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting: Mediation as a Full Contact Multi-dimensional Encounter There is nothing more practical than a good

theory James C. Maxwell (later reiterated by Kurt Lewin) In theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality, they are not Albert Einstein Polkinghorn and Jarrett 2013 DRAFT for discussion but not to be cited Introduction Modern physics, martial arts, and the practice of mediation have a lot in common. In fact, the success of mediation as an emerging profession may well depend on how well it navigates the nitty-gritty, fluid realities to which both the discipline of physics and martial arts have aptly applied themselves. While good mediators need not become physicists or martial artists, the former can usefully apply knowledge and skills developed in these disciplines to improve mediation through the careful application of their practice metaphors. Part I of this paper explores the notion of complexity and theory development in modern physics, and in particular, the views of James Maxwell and Albert Einstein. Part II discusses the insights on human interaction developed in the practice of martial arts and, in particular, the views of notable practitioner, Bruce Lee and Sun Tzu . Part III applies these collective insights to the development of a more expanded and value-added mediation theory and practice. I. Insights from Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg and the Quantum Universe

In the world of physics James C. Maxwell and Albert Einstein were far ahead of their contemporaries. Each had the uncanny ability to solve age old and perplexing problems that members of their field struggled to understand. We also know from biographical research that Einstein liked to conduct thought experiments (Isaacson, 2007) that helped him grapple with the development of new conceptual frameworks as well as to explore ideas that, at the time, couldnt be empirically verified due to lack of advanced precision instrumentation. Einstein used his imagination to maneuver around limitations. Likewise, Maxwell experimented with all sorts of materials, even toys of all things, to unravel, understand and then demonstrate complex theoretical principles (Cropper, 2001). Maxwell tinkered with toys to make discoveries. The results of these thought experiments and playful activities both designed to explore as yet fully imaginable ideas produced stupendous theoretical breakthroughs.

1|Page

Indeed, their breakthroughs increased exponentially our ability to explore and exploit the physical world.1 Maxwell and Einstein played by different rules than the contemporaries of their day. They re-examined the predominant thinking and, to some extent, shed some of the prevailing theoretical constraints within physics in order to explore other paths of inquiry. In other words, they were not fixed in their thinking; they were fluid in their ingenuity and thereby encouraged the discipline to embrace the nature of complexity within the physical universe. As Einstein and Maxwell understood, theory can bind or, alternatively, expand thinking. Theory can play a useful role in the development of disciplines and schools of thought. In one sense, the development of theory for theory sake as a purist pursuit can yield useful results that allows for the exploration of hypothetical ideas that cant be researched perhaps at that time - in the traditional positivist manner of the scientific method. 2 On the other hand, theory is but one part of the knowledge equation. All areas of scholarly inquiry possess a combination of theory, research and some type of applied or practical components. An applied theory is one that is meant to be used to solve problems; it is, by design, practical. 3 Arguably, Maxwell is right in his assertion that there is nothing more useful than a good theory. When all three areas of scholarly activity, i.e. theory, research and applied/practical, are working in synchronicity and each component informs the others of new developments and ideas, then the chances of creating large leaps in the advancement of knowledge and practice are likely to increase. In less organized disciplines or fields of study, where these three components are not well coordinated and thus do not interact as well, the ability to advance knowledge and practice can be less orderly or have less of an impact on knowledge. 4 In this case, Einstein is
1

Maxwell and Einstein epitomize the ideal scientist in Thomas Kuhns (1962) theory behind the structures of scientific revolutions. Each produced radical, jarring changes i.e. paradigm shifts - in the basic knowledge and understanding in the fields of physics. Each radically altered several long held scientific beliefs going back to Sir Isaac Newton and each changed the way all humans understood the world and how we interact with it. Likewise, new knowledge attained from their theoretical breakthroughs have had untold impacts on all aspects of everyday life from the development of all electric devices known to human kind; space travel, communication, medicine, energy production, etc. Likewise, by approaching normal physic problems from unique perspectives each altered the fundamental approach and procedures used in problem solving used by physicists. Indeed, the paradox of pure theoretical work often times relies on assuming things that cant be empirically verified as true i.e. they exist as theorized, which is, to some extent an anti-positivist stance. Indeed, intuition and introspection, realms of thinking whereby people try to make some sense of the physical and social world are often rejected by the pure positivists yet, to some degree, even positivist have to start somewhere with their theoretical thinking even if it is a hunch. That is, of course, theory that is derived from sound logic and hypotheses testing and not that derived from ideological dogma such as was seen in Soviet science of the 1920-1930s where superb scientific research was either suppressed and the scientist punished because the findings did not comport with communist ideology or the results were manipulated to uphold a tenet of the orthodoxy. The same can be said of Nazi science. At this stage in the development of the field of mediation theory is starting to develop into clusters based on areas of application (community, international), types of mediation (behavioral styles). The research portion of the

2|Page

correct; in theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality they are not. We suggest in the social sciences this adage should be considered a quasi-law. The mark of both Einstein and Maxwell was their ability to think outside the box and embrace and indeed intiate paradigmatic shifts in their fields. The field of contemporary mediation is in need of thinkers who are willing to embrace the quality and kind of paradigmatic shifts associated with these individuals. But what would a paradigmatic shift in mediation theory look like? Thomas Kuhn has mapped the shifts in science that occurred as a result of dramatic shifts in worldview. He argues that disciplines continue along, building toward critical mass in consensus concerning opinion. At a given tipping point, in this process, opinion is overturned dramatically and replaced by a new paradigmatic view. Its as if the discipline re-starts, reboots, and reformulates itself. An entire reformulation of mediation would arguably entail the recognition of mediation as a complex adaptive system in which practitioners could adopt flexible contingent strategies responsive to moment-to-moment interactions with their clients. So how do we get there? Arguably, contemporary mediation is lacking a good social theory within which to embed the practice. Social theory is designed to predict, among other things, future behavior/action or likely outcomes of social processes. However social science has limitations. The theorist must take into account several challenges that the hard sciences do not. The first is the subject matter. Trying to predict human behavior (individual or group) is fraught with uncertainty and can lead to fallible theory and sometimes unpredictable outcomes. 5 The hard sciences contend with more predictable subject matter such as the amount of arc light will bend around the gravitational pull of a star. The second challenge centers on the instruments or tools used by social scientists. Third, and more problematic, is that social theory is impacted to a greater extent than the hard sciences by researcher biases that include, among other things, ideological agendas, self-serving prophesies or wishful thinking and a host of other forms of human induced fallacies of logic. 6 These can creep into complex theories rendering
field is slowly gaining some coherent order especially in mediation process and program evaluation ( e.g. works by McDermott et al, Bingham, Umbreit, McEwen).
5

In game theory the starting point for all experiments rests on several assumptions one of which that is each player is a rational actor someone who will act in his or her best self-interest. The problem with this assumption is that, in reality, individuals and groups often ignore or repudiate such conditions and assumptions that supposedly comprise a unified idea of what rational behavior should be. More importantly, theories that rely on rational actor models or some other type of pre-determined or deterministic thinking often fail to account for several types of behavior seen in conflict. Not being able to account for emotionally driven behavior, rituals and traditions that have lost their original meaning, self-sacrifices and acts of altruism are just a few that could lead to several types of behavior or interaction that might be labeled as irrational or non-rational by some theorist but are easily understood and logical and rational to others. Likewise, at a macro theoretical, deterministic thinking has led to several monumental atrocities including Nazism and Communism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were ideologically illiterate to fallible human behavior.

Unfortunately, the pursuit of truth through science isnt always a clear cut path. There are instances of the seeping influence of individual scientists ideology and politics creeping into scientific discourse, the most recent and notable being the issue of climate change where methods, data and findings are attacked both for relevant

3|Page

them more akin to perspectives than theory that incorporates testable hypotheses. Even so, in all areas of science, it is a requirement that theories be tested over time and place to establish reliability of outcomes and validity of instruments and tools. Likewise, good science dictates that when retesting a hypothesis one should not do so in expectation of replication or worse to actively search for confirming data but to actively challenge the result in what Popper (1963) refers to as falsification. In this framework Popper states that if the idea is indeed false it can be shown to be by direct observation. If the results show the hypothesis to be false then the researcher can reject the hypothesis in its entirety or modify the theoretical framework to account for the data anomaly. Because of this many social theories need to be tested often as new behavioral patterns or social dynamics may arise that requires modification of the theory. One of the challenges in studying social conflict is the numerous ways it is expressed. Combatants may act rationally which makes our job as researchers more manageable but that doesnt necessarily imply consistent behavior or conduct at all times. 7 Testing theory is a hallmark of the sciences and yet, sometimes, theory doesnt capture the essence of what is being studied. In the case of mediation we believe this is likely the case. In order to address this concern this article takes aim at the development of another theoretical perspective that examines mediation processes through a lens that may be more fluid in regard to the interpretation of social interactions. 8 Herbert Blumers theory of symbolic interaction examines the meaning, language and thought of individuals in situ in their attempts to make sense of event or situations they encounter. Conflict often arises when there are misses i.e.
scholarly reasons as well as slightly veiled ideological and personal reasons. The attendant fundamental misattribution and personalization of these pitch battles shows science to be a human endeavor fraught with human imperfections stirred by the hijacking of scientists and science as proxies in political battles. See Mann, Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line. New York: Columbia University Press. Likewise, there are cases of battles arising between cliques within specific scientific communities such a prime example relating to the crown of thorns (star fish) outbreak in the Pacific Ocean that periodically wipes out huge areas of coral reefs. See Sapp, Jan (1999) What is Natural: Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press. On the rational end of conflict analysis we find game theory. This is where parties act with enlightened self interest to make choices in deciding on courses of action. It is usually simple dichotomous decisions to cooperate or defect. Rational thinking predicated on self-interest is the foundation of the logic within which decisions are made. There are several challenges to game theory and conflict analysis. Contextual elements impact decision making and thus limits the ability to accurately analyze conflict. Likewise, people do irrational things such as sacrifice their lives for others as was evident in the Aurora movie theatre killings in the summer of 2012 as well as the President of the Sikh Temple in Michigan who rushed the killer welding an automatic weapon with a butter knife. Perhaps the biggest disconnect with game theory is that it has to ignore some aspects of reality and rely more so on forced choice decisions which limits creativity, the ability to bring options to the table or somehow add value and other means to reframe and resolve conflicts that have been locked in a structural maze for some time. For those interested in an enjoyable read on game theory we recommend Prisoners Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb. William Poundstone (1992). New York: Anchor Books. For a more academic read we suggest Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Roger B. Meyerson (1991) Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
8 7

Comment [BP1]: How is this for a walk in to Blumer and Symbolic Interaction? Feel free to flush it out.

Brian J., we might want to frame the argument using symbolic interactionism.

4|Page

miscommunication of meaning, language and thought among individuals. There are many other symbolic interaction derived misses that lead to conflict such as misperception, misattribution and miscommunication to name just a few. This perspective places an emphasis on the meaning of human interaction and thus provides an alternative to theories relating to mediation that focuses more strictly on predetermined behavior or models of conduct. 9 The reason for studying interaction instead of behavior can provide numerous advantages. The first is that the reality of studying conflict interaction among individuals or groups might not unfold within a pre-determined taxonomy of behavior but more so by situation specific action-reaction or negotiated interaction whereby the observer begins to identify situation specific patterns that lead to the development of testable hypotheses within the data. Second, there are always problems with employing a preexisting set of principles that purport to measure and/or regulate behavior of mediators and, to a lesser degree, disputants. One problem is that the mere existence of taxonomy may influence what it is the observer thinks he or she is witnessing when there is always the chance that the actual meaning behind the observed interaction, conduct or behavior is misinterpreted or perhaps even not recorded. 10 Heisenberg in the physics discipline demonstrated that in the act of observing the observer acts on the world changing what s/he can actually observe. (footnote and cite) Heisenberg called this the Uncertainty Principle. At the subatomic level the act of observing changes the observed. The discipline of quantum physics has come to recognize what we as mediators are yet to fully grasp. (Explain metaphorically). What we are trying to avoid here is the reproduction of yet another behavior driven perspective that is predicated on pre-existing constructs. The concern here is that the alleged properties or characteristics of mediator conduct are often driven in a backwards fashion from
9

Interaction and behavior are closely related although the distinction between these concepts is crucial to an understanding of conflict. Interaction focuses on the dynamics that go on between individuals or groups while behavior focuses on the dynamic on one side of the conflict dyad. Behavior has an individual orientation while interaction implies two or more individuals engaged in some activity and social conflict, by definition, impoied two or more parties in an interdependent relationship.

More specifically, one challenge we see occurring with predetermined taxonomies is that individuals who employ them may fall prey to two cognitive challenges. The first occurs when viewing a mediation interaction whereby the observer attempts to place certain episodes into a given taxonomic code where the activity being observed does not neatly fit the properties of the code. It is akin to jamming reality (the round peg) into the data category (the square hole) and not adjusting the hole (properties list) to reflect the evolving definition of the category. An even more troubling problem concern is when the observer, for whatever reason, engages in the logical fallacy of the self-fulfilling prophecy wherein if a person has a pre-determined idea what might occur they are more likely to observe it. This form of foreshadowing poses a serious research dilemma and is inconsistent with pursuing an understanding of the meaning, language and thought of individuals interacting in a conflict scenario or a mediation process. One way to control for this is to train several researchers in behavior coding and to then establish a high inter-coder reliability (Kappa) score and to then let them code mediation interaction (i.e. mediator and party behaviors) and then examine the level of agreement among the codes.

10

5|Page

a pre-determined mediation style or taxonomy to the mediators behavior. What we are suggesting here is to reverse the entire research endeavor to produce a perspective predicated on the study of the fluid interaction occurring in mediation rather than a taxonomic behavior based approach. In other words, start from scratch and see what it is mediators do to help or hinder the process and from those data findings devise and set of characteristics of effective mediation encased within a theory of interaction. This approach to the study of mediation interaction requires a special flexible theoretical origin such as that found in grounded theory 11 (Glaser and Strauss, 1969) as well as a more robust method of data collection and analysis such as that found in analytic induction 12 (Znaniecki, 1934). The strength of analytic induction is that it requires the researcher to employ both deductive and inductive iterative thinking instead of more limited traditional positivistic driven deduction. The argument for induction is that the subject matter focuses squarely on human interaction being the source for the creation of interactive patterns. This is a more labor intensive approach and it can take several series of observations to gather enough data before the researcher can go into the data and start to examine it for associations and patterns that can be tested in the next round of data collection. II. Insights from Bruce Lee and the World of Martial Arts Interaction

Bruce Lee was an inspirational actor, martial artist, and social philosopher. Like Einstein and Maxwell, he initiated paradigmatic shifts in the martial arts and the relationship of society toward martial arts. Lees work can be seen as a dramatic shift and expansion of earlier treatises in martial arts, such as that of Sun Tzu. Sun Tzus work is essential in understanding social conflict but it needed the paradigmatic shift introduced by Bruce Lee to provide the benefits we now see form Lees work. Long before Bruce Lee there was Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military general who is credited by many scholars as being the author of The Art of War. 13 This noted military masterpiece provides insightful lessons on how to effectively win battles. At first blush The Art of War is a treatise on military strategy and yet there is much more to it than first meets the eye. It is also a brilliant philosophical foundation for the prevention and effective management of conflict. 14 This assertion may seem odd to some in the conflict intervention field. It is not meant to be provocative or to create dissonance. All one has to do is first be open to reading it and second doing so with a focus on conflict prevention a prime military strategy we might add to fully understand that much of conflict interaction involves pre-conflict activity.
11 12 13

Describe grounded theory Describe analytic induction strengths and weaknesses.

Some scholars believe that The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu and later expounded upon by his descendent Sun Bin. Others believe Sun Bin is the real author while still others believe the book includes commentary from numerous unknown authors spanning many years after Sun Tsus death.
14

There are many translations of The Art of War that place emphasis on various aspects of Sun Tzus writing. One translation that is approachable to many people is the translation by Thomas Cleary. See, Cleary, Thomas. (1988). The Art of War Sun Tzu. Boston: Shambhala Press.

6|Page

In the centuries since Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War many have adopted his principles and lessons. Some have outright plagiarized his work while others have modified or used it as a starting point for similar work.15 Sun Tzu dispensed with wisdom that applies to many forms of interaction. His advice on tactics and strategies is seen throughout history yet many of those employing his ideas probably never heard of him. For instance, the tactical brilliance of Alexander the Great is legendary. In some battles he was able to lure the opposing army into a death trap by feigning strength where there was weakness and weakness where there was strength on his front line. This often led to swift and decisive battle with a devastating outcome for his unfortunate opponent. This tactic was explained by Sun Tzu centuries earlier and was designed not only to keep the other party off balance but to gain time to consider other means of disengaging the enemy. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this sage advice occurred in modern day boxing when Muhammad Ali employed his now famous rope-a-dope strategy against George Foreman. Early in the fight Ali effectively lured Foreman into throwing too many punches that both failed to score points or deliver the much desired knockout blow. Alis strategy was simple; he leaned against the rope and protected his head during the early rounds and, when the time came, Ali surprised the now exhausted Foreman by coming back with a flurry of body blows and head shots and knocked Foreman out. Ali feigned weakness where there was strength. Foreman took the bait and fell into Alis trap. Why did Foreman fall for this tactic and not see the strategy unfold before him? It is most likely because he was used to the normal strategy of going about boxing, employing tried and tested strategies and tactics. This one instance was more than a display of tactical genius. It was a game changer or as Thomas Kuhn (1962) wrote in is seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm shift in boxing strategy. The old way of going about normal problem solving abruptly shifted. The rules of the game needed to be rewritten. Yet, there still remains some degree of opposition to the study of people like Sun Tzu. This is, we believe, either ignorance and unenlightened or an ideologically driven rejection that only serves to narrow the ability of intervention practitioners and conflict scholars to grasp the fuller meaning of conflict interaction. 16 Fortunately, both authors have spent years teaching military officers conflict prevention, peace building, conflict intervention and conflict systems

An excellent example or plagiarism and reinterpretation can be found in the work of military theorist Niccolo Machiavellis. His interpretation of war a bit more ruthless. See Machiavelli, Niccolo, (1965) The Art of War (Revised edition of Ellis Farneworth. New York: De Capo Paperback. An example should help clarify this tendency to reject all things military. One of the authors designed a graduate course in the early 1990s entitled Philosophy and Social Issues of Conflict. The course examined several philosophical schools of thought along with specific thinkers that impacted social theories of conflict origins and conflict mitigation/resolution. One section of the course examined the philosophy developed by several military thinkers that served to provide, among other things, strategic military advantage over adversaries. One such author was Sun Tzu. What was troubling was the reaction by some of the faculty who, while paying some homage to academic freedom, applied pressure not to include The Art of War in the class materials. One quoted Einstein You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war which totally missed the point which should have been if you understand how to prevent war then you have some knowledge on how to construct peace.
16

15

7|Page

analysis.17 What we have learned from our students is that most are naturals at conflict analysts as it is their job to study both the normal routine means of problem solving and to anticipate the unforeseen nonobvious crisis where systems are overloaded or the means of engagement are radically altered. So, for the moment lets be practical. The primary reason military officers study and continually practice military strategies and tactics is for those times when they will be called upon to use them. These exercises also encompass methods to reduce exposure to unnecessary risks and this incorporates preventative strategies and tactics. Lets also be real. There are many other ways to employ that knowledge short of battlefield engagements to effectively manage conflict interactions. Indeed, the last thing the majority of officers want to do is take their forces into battle. If politicians and public opinion leaders can manage the crisis and keep the forces off the battlefield then more power to them. If we put aside stereotypes and admit that the military is but one of several institutions that play a role in violent interaction, then if we adopt a systems approach, it is easier to identify the common links that bind these institutions together. This includes the way people think, the way they create meaning and the language they use. This helps scholars and practitioners of various form of conflict engagement in grasping a systems approach to large scale social conflict and to recognize that symbolic interaction acts as a means to interpret divergent ideas and piece them together into a broader and deeper framework within which to examine, interpret and engage in conflict interaction. Into the Modern Era with Bruce Lee We can learn a great deal from thinkers and practitioners of other forms of conflict interaction who have either been ignored or never seriously considered as worthy contributors to the further understanding of conflict origins or conflict interaction. A prime example is the late Bruce Lee, a master and notable promoter of numerous forms of the martial arts. Lee was an inventor and experimenter with an entrepreneurial spirit who possessed as knack for creative thinking. Lee, himself, constantly drew analogies between martial arts and social interaction. He didnt see interaction so much from a set of categorical forms but more so as a fluid evolving exchange. This interpretation of interaction was indeed different from other martial art philosophies. We speculate that if the late Thomas Kuhn were to have been asked he would agree that Bruce Lee created a radical paradigm shift in the theoretical backbone of the martial arts. Lee effectively changed the rules and as such the normal way of viewing the world, making sense of it and, more importantly, the means by which to engage and solve problems. At the time of his experimentation with various forms his revolution in thinking revealed to many others a less ordered system. The way to navigate through the chaos was to embrace flexibility, ingenuity and adaptation.
Brian Polkinghorn has been teaching a course in peace building and conflict resolution with Ambassador John McDonald at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University for seven years. Students in this graduate program are officers who have been tapped to assume leadership command in their home countries. As of fall 2012 they have had students from 24 countries. Brian Jarrett has been teaching members of the armed force
17

Comment [BP2]: The following is Brian J. note: (See the Pierre Burton interview on Youtube we can draw on this and actually use his social commentary. Maybe we talk about Kuhn and Bruce up front here instead of dumping Kuhn on the reader at the end of the paragraph. Bruce Lee is in fact the Kuhn for marital arts.).

8|Page

Not surprisingly, during his lifetime, the fighting techniques Lee developed defied categorization within the prevailing taxonomy of styles found at that time within the martial arts. His innovation and improvement on prior art created not just chaos and controversy but serious rivalries among him and purists of other styles and forms. Perhaps the best thing his innovations did was to create a sense of dissonance in regard to the way things were ordered. Dissonance can be good because it can, perhaps uncomfortable, focus thinking on the core beliefs and values behind actions and ideas. It can be a highly personalized introspective exercise that can have an impact on evolving social relations. Lee created dissonance through his deliberately produced paradigm shifts. His unique and distinct approach can be traced all the way back to the fundamental way he viewed fighting. He developed a simple yet, in those days, radical philosophy that intently focused on human means of interaction. While this line of thinking sounds simple, bland and obvious it fundamentally challenged the prevailing hegemony behind the martial arts of his day. The result was the eventual shift in the way practitioners approached various styles of the martial arts. In fact, Lee came to view styles of martial arts, in and of themselves, as a counterproductive development that did nothing more than act as an artificial means to separate people from one another rather than advance the overall art. So too, one might argue, this may be the case for any form of social interaction (in this case mediation) that becomes atomized by established habits and traditions that eventually lead to a hegemony leading to a new style. Examples abound in many fields of human interaction. For instance, within the realm of clinical psychology there have developed multiple clinical techniques predicated on specific theoretical concepts and associated models. Indeed, various schools of thought have grown out of these different stylistic approaches to clinical work and therapy. Each correctly claims to hold a unique set of ideals that act as the building blocks of the core concepts that provide a specific focus to interaction. These conceptual lenses also act as a means to create particular interactive traits. 18 Bruce Lee recognized that various forms of the martial arts began with specific approaches to interaction that subsequently impact style. Yet, when looking at interaction in its totality he saw that no one style appeared to capture the essence of the totality of interaction. The defensive martial arts were reactionary by nature. Some of these styles were carried out not so much to fully interact with the opponent going from defense to offense and so on but, as he said, to perform for a group of judges sitting nearby. Yet other martial arts, while also defensive in nature, are also used more so for meditation and exercise. Still other forms of martial arts rely on a particular set of favored tactics and associated means such as throwing, punching, kicking or use of specific weapons. Lee came to see these forms of interaction as being part of the larger repertoire needed to fully interact and engage others. Lee even went outside the martial arts to study human interaction. He spent countless hours watching and studying Mohamed Ali's boxing tapes and incorporated some of Alis footwork and punching techniques into his skill set. Lee also observed the forms and footwork of
18

(Place a footnote here a brief discussion on various clinical schools, Rogerian, Freudian, etc.)

9|Page

champion fencers and how they were able to lunge and attack. He even observed wrestling as another form of interaction. 19 Taking from these forms he developed a more encompassing approach to interaction. In fact, to accompany his new repertoire of interaction Lee had to change both his strategic and tactical thinking. In many ways, Lee was creating not just a new way to interact but along with it a new starting point for a new set of rules. We have seen how when rules are changed radical shifts can arise in relations among parties. In a similar line of thinking Napoleon Bonaparte studied the tactics and strategies of the great ancient generals such as Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Scipio Africanus and incorporated various tactics and strategies into his own knowledge base and skill set. While Napoleon knew Alexander was a great tactician and could command at will on the battle field, it was the ability to mix up the engagement on the field, in essence to interrupt the interaction of battle, that Napoleon knew created strategic advantage. Indeed, while Napoleon rampaged around Europe for several years using new tactics and strategies to defeat enemies almost at will he did not believe as though he had actually own any battle on his own accord. He was simply plugging in the lessons he learned from the great generals of days gone by. It wasnt until the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 where Napoleon led a brilliant tactical tour-de-force and destroyed a much larger army that commanded superior strategic battle field advantage. 20 Napoleon was both a tactical and strategic genius and this is the usual explanation for the decisive, brazen and shocking victory. What is often left unstated is that Napoleon didnt play by the so called rules of engagement. He changed the rules of engagement on the battle field and essentially forced other armies into playing his game thus allowing him to use his tactical and strategic game plan to his advantage. In short, Bruce Lee developed a form of interaction that borrowed elements from many martial arts and other forms of interaction to create a new or hybrid or improved but not wholly unique repertoire of skills and associated rules of interaction. This form of interaction seems to operate on several ideas. The first is that it took into consideration, as its starting point, the interaction dynamics one is experiencing at the time and this led to the second that is to repair back to various tactics and strategies that meet the particular interaction which could entail a slew of defensive and offensive moves. With practice, this form of interaction can be repetitive and similar to muscle memory. Yet, Lee goes further. His thinking also left room for innovation and improvisation. This is where Lee changed the rules on many purists. If we adopt interaction as Lees key focus relating to how humans engage then Kung Fu and mediation have a lot more in common than one might think at first blush. In any physical contest one can observe the physical waxing and waning of energy between the parties, ie., the expression of yin and yang energy. At one instance one party may become more aggressive
If Bruce Lee were alive today one might speculate that he would have intently studied hip hop and break dancing. To be fair Napoleon took advantage of terrain and weather conditions that he took note of the night before the battle.
20 19

10 | P a g e

and in another his opponent who was previously yielding may now press the action forth. This can go back and forth through many rounds with patterns of initiation and yielding constantly shifting with the movement of the parties. Applying the metaphor of this exchange to mediation, we can begin to think of the verbal and non-verbal exchanges in mediation as asserting (yang) and yielding (yin) patterns just like one would oberve in a fight. And the pattern of yin-yang energy appears to emerge and dissipate in complex but predictable patterns. Meeting yang energy with yang energy is disastrous just as meeting yin energy with yin energy can be. Knowing when to yield or press forth is the mark of the true expert in martial arts. The metaphor of Chi (or Ki) helps us to understand that the energy of each fighter is tapped from a larger source and expressed through each fighter. The fighter themselves are the embodiment of Chi in action as they struggle back and forth to conquer the other.

III.

Applying Insights from the Quantum Universe and Martial Arts to Mediation.

(we have to add the application of the physics metaphors into this section they parallel the martial arts insights so we can connect them here with acitivity in mediaiotn). I think we might have three subsections in this Part III.) Because mediation takes place in a physical field there is no reason to assume that encounters in mediation are not subject to the same principles, forces, and patterns that are are emerging in the discipline of new physics. At the very least, we have to admit a useful metaphorical connection. One might even consider if it is possible to create an informed social physics of mediation. (footnote Emile Durkheim and his failed attempt at a social physics because of the limitation of the Newtonian paradigm) . Furthermore, the forces, waves, patterns, complexity emerging in the quantum world appear to resonate with much thinking in the martial arts world. We believe that practice in mediation can benefit from the application of theoretical developments in the former. In many respects mediation, along with the discipline of physics and martial arts. all attempt to understand and navigate interactions. All tackle complexity with countless variations in activity and thus there are many tactics and strategies that can be taught and developed that impact mediation dynamics. For the mediation participants we can teach effective communication, negotiation strategies and collaborative problem solving skills and for the third party intervener we can add to that list further training in effective intervention techniques and process management knowledge, skills and abilities. Now, depending on a mediator's approach to the interaction she can, and often does, whether consciously or not, choose to adopt a particular philosophy that frames the way she prefers to interact with participants. From this she can choose to adopt one set of tactics over another. Likewise, she can choose not to incorporate a set of tactics and strategies as she sees fit. The question is why? Why do some mediators choose to adopt a particular set of tactics, skills and strategies? Is it because it fits their philosophy of interaction? Does it fit their level of experience and skill
11 | P a g e

Comment [BP3]: Howe about if you take a shot at this section and then we can chat about it. I like the idea but am not sure how to pdoceed.

set or their personality and character? Does it match their previous experience as a mediator? Is it required by rules, codes of ethics or some other external mechanism one needs to abide to be a mediator? These are reasonable and predictable areas of inquiry but less obvious is to ask do mediators take into consideration the stated process needs of the parties when making these decisions? Do parties drive the process in any way or are they merely passive passengers within the process as it moves along driven by the mediator to given outcome? If all the parties are enfranchised and engaged is this a more desirable or meaningful way to interact? A. Mapping the Predictable Dynamics of Interaction (and the Development of Professional Habitus) It is worth noting that for every process there is an outcome and if the process is modified we can to some degree manipulate the range of potential outcomes. So if the parties are interacting in a way that suits their needs and this drives the process then we might hypothesize that this interaction might produce different outcomes than those being driven primarily by the rules imposed on them by a third party. Some argue that participant impact on how the process operates can lead to manipulation that pre-exists between the parties. In other words, parties can reproduce the dynamics that got them into the dispute or conflict in the first place within the mediation session. This is party driven process manipulation and something the field has been good about recognizing and perhaps attending too. 21 For instance asymmetric power relationships can be the source of much discord among parties. Early theorists, such as Burton, when talking about international conflict, chided practitioners by saying the production of artificial conditions with mediation would not change conditions on the ground and could, in fact, be unethical. The more pressing query is if we recognize real life conditions such as power differences exist among parties then how is it we dont recognize that same with mediators who control the process and hence the outcome? Basic research on reactivity (cite) impression management (cite) and even the Hawthorne effect (cite) indicates that the mere presence of a third party is enough to cause participants to modify their demeanor, conduct and behavior. Taking that into consideration one might open up the debate on whether or how parties already do manipulate the process. Regardless of how these debates conclude the primary concept that is present in all of this is interaction. If the mediator is an agent that can choose among many forms of interactions then it should be reasonable to assume the same of the parties. If this same ability is afforded to the parties then the question becomes whose philosophy and rules of interaction will prevail or how will different philosophies of interaction be moderated? Mediators can, and often do, provide a time/space oasis (cite Klease) for parties to safely, and with dignity, work through issues. This is the ideal circumstance to develop but what if the mediator is employing an approach that doesn't resonate with the parties? What if the mediator is dragging the process
21

However, substituting third party hegemony onto the parties is another form of manipulation that can or likely does impact mediation interaction and outcomes. The prevailing thought is structured interaction (mediator styles aside) if handled properly, can produce desirable outcomes but who is to say that creating an artificial problem solving environment might not produce harm when the parties re-enter the conflict zone?

12 | P a g e

out sometimes over many sessions to the point the parties beg the mediator to stop and just help them decide on issues? What then? Is the mediator, who is going through the artful motions of a particular style actually interfering with the resolution of the dispute as the parties wish to have it conducted and concluded? What about other styles that impede the process as the parties wish to have it conducted? What then? This is precisely where the thinking of Bruce Lee comes into play and where highly trained and fully seasoned mediators can inform the field of modifications on the art of intervention and how this impacts the science and study of mediation. Having worked with individuals who have had more than 40 years experience at the table it was enjoyable to see how comfortable they were with their means of interacting and how they would quickly moderate their interaction based on subtle cues from the parties. 22 Just as in a dance some party may wish to lead for a while on an issue and then another may step in and take over. An inexperienced mediator may see this and want to pull the parties back into the pre-conceived process at the stage or phase she is in at the time in order to maintain control and keep the interaction moderated within the given mediation style. Or, the mediator may regulate parties behavior that disrupts their ability to convey what they mean (i.e. the content and feeling of their message) using their own language or the mediator may frame issues in a manner that the parties are uncomfortable with or reject. Experienced mediators that we know modify their behavior to come more into line with that of the parties rather than the other way around. Bruce Lee, Napoleon and many mediators think a lot alike. They know the tactics and strategies from particular styles within their specific art (martial arts, war and mediation) and choose to incorporate them when called upon and to not let these tools drive the process. More importantly, a seasoned mediator might let the dynamics at the table and the needs of
22

A close friend of one of the authors was a highly respected practitioner with 44 years experience at the bargaining table. Some of his exploits with (in)famous figures or high profile disputes are near legendary. With so much time at the table he picked up many ideas, tactics and strategies that are rarely found in textbooks, training materials or even in the negotiation research. By working with him he taught the art of intervention at the master level. However, in addition to picking up good ideas and skills used to keep the process moving along, to break impasse and create and support turning points in the negotiation among other things, he may have also picked up, as some in my previous department indicated, bad habits which the authors find much more instructive. These less desirable traits were often branded as bad by faculty in the local university conflict resolution department not because they impeded the process or led to sub-optimal agreements but because the other faculty saw his behavior/conduct as violating the tenets of some stylistic model their teleological ideal of what the ideal mediator should do. Never mind that when working with him, and watching how he would deliberately and quite often violate some of these sacred tenets, the parties would neither object nor did it ever lead to impasse but more often to a mutually agreed upon solution. This story gets worse. It ends with a struggle between the advancement of knowledge and skill development versus orthodoxy. Under the instruction of one of the authors a masters student wrote his thesis on the seasoned practitioner friend that had in its title Breaking All the Rules and the response by some of the faculty, none of whom mediated, was swift, predictable and severe. They insisted that the thesis not be accepted while others were less strident and insisted that it not be placed in the library. The sole reason given is that the conduct of the mediator who was highly successful and sought after by disputants in his arena of practice did not fall into line with the teachings (orthodoxy) of the department.

13 | P a g e

the parties dictate the utilization of a range of tactics and strategies. Through long practice in their craft and, in conjunction with the intent study through the scientific investigation in this case largely experiential, Lee and Napoleon came to adopt a more flexible and intuitive form of interaction that relies a good deal on immediate assessment of current conditions. This just in time response to unfolding dynamics allowed them to select a high probability interaction, perhaps independent of an alleged style of the behavior. So Bruce Lee may, in the matter of a few short moments, show us the kicking, punching and throwing of various styles within the martial arts as well as moves that come various styles of boxing or fencing. His hybrid adaptive approach is predicated on a skill set that appreciates those tactics and strategies that come from many more conditioned or disciplined approaches. The logic here is unique to the more highly specific or specialized forms of interaction. Some might argue that constraints need to be imposed to maintain an expectation that consumers of mediation can understand. Basic tenets of mediation are not abandoned with flexibility. What is being examined here more closely though is the notion that people who steadfastly adhere to a style may rightfully, in their own mind and morals, be staying within a given line of conduct which is consistent and therefore known. The question simply becomes is this the most effective means of assisting parties? If it is not, then flexibility needs to become one of the basic tenets of mediation. Lee genuinely appears to appreciate this thinking about flexibility but instead of placing the cognitive emphasis first on the style of interaction he is placing the focus on the interaction itself and from there choosing the most appropriate skill or tactic to interact with others. His approach allows for function to be followed by form and not the other way around. Adherents to more disciplined styles of mediation often put structure ahead of function and this is where problems can arise. B. Applying the Chi (or Ki) Metaphor in Mediation Discussion on patterned emergence waxing and waning of energy. Implications for mediation. Ripness etc. When to mediate? Implications for activity/joint session/caucus in mediation. Etc. Kurt Lewins force field analysis. Directing energy. Notions of leadership in mediation etc. Mediation juijitsu. Stepping out of the way. Using the energy in the parties to steer the process. Aikido moves. We can refer a little to theories in Aikido. I have a few ideas here I will share.

C. Implications for Reflexive Practice Here we would end on the reflexive practice note. Everybody at the conferences where I have been presenting love when I introduce this reflexive practice notion. Discuss how it is more grounded and how it gives rise to greater theory development. The nothing-is-practical-as- agood-theory-idea. Degree of directivness
14 | P a g e

Instrumentalism moves designed to produce a particular result versus moves opening the field of problem definition. We might want to use refer to the Riskin Grid here.

In summary, if we adopt the idea that by first taking interaction as the primary focus of analysis and examine the dynamics of interaction within mediation, then the mediator can adapt his mediation knowledge and skills more closely to the parties interaction and needs. In this regard not only is form (in this case flexibility) driving function (mediation intervention) it is also driving structure (mediator styles, mediation processes stages) and aligns more so with the philosophy and perspective of Bruce Lee. Conclusion (Need to develop this here. I just put this paragraph in for now.) We realize that we are adopting an unusual theoretical perspective to frame the exploration of mediation interaction but in so doing we hope to recast the debate that has arisen over the last 20 years regarding mediation styles and to focus more so on the dynamics of the mediation process. Our main hypothesis is that mediation styles can often act as rigid prescriptions on interaction and therefore may not capture the give and take and flexible nature that occurs in a mediation interaction. We also believe that some mediator styles are cast in professional or ideological value systems and while this is understandable we know of no theoretical framework that simply focuses on interaction that emphasizes flexibility. The best way to make this point is to construct a set of properties or principles of a variety of mediator styles (behavior frameworks) and test them in live mediation and see what consensus analysis of the data provides. 23 Another is to change the focus of investigation altogether. In this article we have chosen the latter. In so doing we have gone outside the field of third party intervention for inspiration to recast the debate and believe that insight from the quantum world that find resonance in the world of martial arts are instructive for mediators and the development of mediation theory and practice. (need to rework this significantly).

(A lot of the ideas below can be footnoted or infused under our general organization above. Even habitus we may leave to a footnote because it is not the main thrust of the article. Your thoughts?)

15 | P a g e

Rest of paper 1. What do we mean by third party? How does it differ from second and first parties? a. Traditional characteristics of a third party i. Stated strengths and reasons behind these characteristics ii. Limitations of these characteristics 2. Discussion on Major Mediator Styles BRIAN this is where you can really plug in some good stuff (and characteristic behaviors that make them distinct) maybe we can develop a chart to show it in quick form? a. Philosophical strengths as made by proponents 3. Comparing the Art and Science of Mediation to the Branding of Styles - BRIAN this is also a good place for us to talk. While we dont need to go into detail we can talk about the industry that has sprung up around various styles. a. How does adherence to a style unwittingly stymie the art of intervention? b. How does interaction impact the study of mediation (art impacts science)? c. How does the adoption of an adaptive and flexible approach to mediation impact the art and science of mediation? How does this type of action research and experimentation help advance the practice? 4. Giving it a whirl examining mediator tactics and behaviors (research results) 5. What do we mean by third party? Revisited a. Redefining the characteristics of the third party i. Expanding the characteristics (neutral, outsider), skills, rules, behavioral boundaries and structure of third party interaction 6. Impact on research a. Deductive confirmation of styles measuring mediator behavior using pre-determined codes or measures b. Inductive examination of dynamic interaction within mediation let the patterns, behaviors, skills one observes be used to create a series of patterns that lead to models. These can then be compared to the models
16 | P a g e

associated with mediator styles and the reconciliation process can then occur. c. Analytic Induction employing a deductive-inductive loop to study mediator interaction (explore, discover, cluster results, modify back to explore, discover, cluster results, modify, and so on.) A Final Caution Fusion and Fission Keep an open mind, be flexible and try anything once. Variation and experimentation are found throughout nature. It helps to maintain the survival of species. While 95% of a species may cluster in a location that is, for the time being, safe and meets other survival needs, the remaining 5% are off exploring other terrain to their individual peril. Why some animals in a species explore is not fully understood but one thing is clear; if the original colony comes under attack or the hospitable location of the colony goes bad, it is these selfless wanderers within the species who serve the vital role of keeping the species from going extinct. So while some animals may tend to cluster and survive, others will roam and discover. Those that cluster are undergoing a process of fusion and those that wander are undergoing a process of fission. Both fusion (coming together) and fission (moving apart) are necessary in the way people think and behave. The cautionary tale is that if the practice of mediation moves too quickly toward clustering around certain styles, without the benefit testing contextually derived ideas (e.g. needs of the parties, dynamics at the table) then, for better or worse, the tendency will be to caste our lot in fewer options and drive the field into limited style camps. We see this to some degree today. We see institutes, training camps and conferences dedicated solely to one style of mediation yet we see no evidence of mediation being expressed through the larger, broader lens of interaction. The tendency to narrow our cognitive focus and thus limit interaction serves to limit the utility of the style. However, in a cynical way, it also serves to distinguish one style from another. It serves to create a brand and, from that, a set of adherents. To develop a brand of mediation off a particular a style and to support it as a dominant theme can, and does, come at the cost of not realizing the benefits that other "styles" have to offer the parties in their dispute.

Theoretical Framework Habitus Yes, I think we can develop habitus and expand it as norms like Durheim might have thought about that. Norms relating to how professional capital is developing in the mediation field. Instead of social rules we can develop the idea of practice rules and demonstrate that while sometimes useful they can overly restrict practice and protocol. Pierre Bourdieu developed the theoretical construct of the habitus which can be defined as the set of socially learned dispositions, skills and ways of acting that are often taken for granted, and which are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life.
17 | P a g e

Habitus applies to many forms of interaction largely at the social group level. The theory states that teachers, police or construction workers develop a shared habitus with others in their field as do some members of ethnic, gender or racial groups. Habitus can be applied to institutional cultures such as religious communities or educational institutions where the regulation of interaction tends to develop over a period of time to include not only formal rules but informal traditions that predispose people to act and behave in a certain manner. The notion of habitus can also be applied to professional groups such as lawyers, social worker and physicians wherein professional norms and rules are present alongside a set of traditions that regulate the conduct of those in the profession as they go about their business. In fact, other institutions often reinforce these norms through external certification and licensure or by the establishment of laws. In many regards habitus can be applied to many individuals who partake in some organized group activity and mediators are no exception. Even though there is a rather wide variation in the practice of mediation, not just in skill but in the background of the practitioners, one can often detect the habitus by simply asking mediators what they do. However, just as in the clinical psychology realm, mediators may provide a general description of what they do as well as perhaps some specific activities, tactics for skills that may place them in a sub-set of a mediator. This is one way to begin to assume first a common thread among mediators and second to begin to appreciate the development of different styles or schools of thought on the practice of mediation. Each mediation style has a set of values that underpin the reasoning or justification for the conduct and activities of the mediator. So, in one sense, the distinction between various mediation styles may have less to do with what tools are being used but more so with the reasons behind why certain mediation tools or skills are being chosen to be used in the first place. In this sense these rules can establish a subset of the overall mediation habitus that can be expressed both as a conscious set of rules as well as a set of ideas that may not be fully articulated but that are nonetheless present and impact the dynamics of the mediation setting. In some sense then, the mediation habitus is formed as much by formal indoctrination as it is by the practice of direct sensory interaction. From Habitus to Hegemony cautionary tale #2 Here is another theoretical underpinning that may lead to unintended consequences. Mediation styles can evolve into brands by manipulating aspects of the habitus and turning desired parts of it into hegemony. This hegemony in turn serves to create orthodoxy within certain fields of mediation that then generates the development of specific theoretical lenses and associated language and perhaps even into dogma. Then, from this lens we see why mediators of certain alleged styles do what they do.
18 | P a g e

We can then also caution that these lens not only impact how interaction is interpreted but how mediators act and influence the dynamics between the parties which means we do produce reactivity even if we dont want to admit it. We do, through our mediation styles, impact the process dynamics and outcomes. We do, through interaction, influence parties.

19 | P a g e

References Cropper, William (2001). Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking. New York: Oxford University Press. Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Heisenberg The Uncertainty Principle Isaacson, Walter. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mann, Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line. New York: Columbia University Press. Popper, Karl. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul. Sapp, Jan (1999). What is Natural? Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press. Schroedinger (we may mention) Znaniecki, Florian. (1934). The Method of Sociology. New York: Rinehart.

20 | P a g e