What is it about a third party intercessor which can turn conflict into resolution? Why do people in conflict turn to a third party to intercede in their path towards resolution? Why have they been doing so since ancient times?

Today is it because they want to avoid the adversarial and costly court system? Mediation  just fills some kind of void in our legal system?

As was pointed out to me use of a third party existed when people lived in tribes and clans where they turned to an elder or someone they respected. In our urban society, although these practices still exist, most seekers of a mediator ask for a referral, search the internet, or look in the yellow pages under ADR or mediators to find an intercessor. Perhaps a lasting vestige of the “elder” is that some mediators are “grey haired”, yours truly included. Traditional methods of conflict resolution still exist or are being brought back in a number of cultures. Evolution of the field has progressed to the point a practitioner can seek advanced certificates and degrees.  So, is a factor in a mediators effectiveness respect? What else; experience, reputation, skills, presence, abilities to dissect, analyze, problem solve, etc?

What about mediations where a mediator is present but is minimally involved as the parties solve their own problem in direct dialogue? It happens. So, is there something just about the presence of a mediator that makes a difference? Is it about forum in which to hold dialogue? Are people in conflict just looking for a place of safety represented through an agreement by both parties to engage in mediation?

Think back to ancient times, well before the establishment of a judicial system where people in conflict cede decision making to a judge operating under “rules of law”. Life spans and odds of survival were much lower back then than today. Survival in a conflict situation did not always depend on the use of violence did it? Who did they turn to? If they turned to a third party, was a mediator a way to mitigate violence or increase their chances of survival? Do we still view third party intercession in the same way today with a hope for peaceful resolution? Was it, is it,  about saving face?

When our predecessors turned to elders or relatives did they do so because it was a means by which to preserve relationships? Is maintenance of relationships an important factor today and does a mediator fill this gap in some way?  Is mediation better able to do so than litigation?

I’m relatively sure that to any of the questions posed above an answer is “it depends” on the case and the circumstances. However, in my observation and dealings with people in conflict, in general,  I find some level of deference in a mediation to process and mediator even though I don’t have any decision making power in resolution of the conflict. It’s almost as if working with a mediator creates a “trust” between the people in conflict and mediator. Not that there aren’t tension filled moments and mediations which have to be closed because it is the wrong mediator for the parties, or the wrong type of case for a mediator. Those are the exceptions. Sometimes people in conflict still work out their difference in front of the mediator even if it’s the wrong mediator. Perhaps they are there to solve a problem and it is their commitment to do so that drives everything else?

Mediation has a long lived history and although most of today’s mediators are not tribal elders or relatives there are factors in mediation, about third party intercession, which continue to reduce situations from conflict to resolution. As it is popularly said, it’s one of life’s mysteries and I’m seeking answers. Look at mediation and come up with your own conclusions why a third party intercession would work for you.