Mediated Essay Example

By
Christopher Honeyman
Nita Yawanarajah

September 2003

What Mediation Is:

Mediation is a process in which a third-party neutral assists in resolving a dispute between two or more other parties. It is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution. The role of the mediator is to facilitate communication between the parties, assist them in focusing on the real issues of the dispute, and generate options that meet the interests or needs of all relevant parties in an effort to resolve the conflict.


Additional insights into mediation are offered by several Beyond Intractability project participants.

Unlike arbitration, where the intermediary listens to the arguments of both sides and makes a decision for the disputants, a mediator assists the parties to develop a solution themselves. Although mediators sometimes provide ideas, suggestions, or even formal proposals for settlement, the mediator is primarily a "process person," helping the parties define the agenda, identify and reframe the issues, communicate more effectively, find areas of common ground, negotiate fairly, and hopefully, reach an agreement. A successful mediation effort has an outcome that is accepted and owned by the parties themselves.

Where It is Used:

Mediation is widely used in all sorts of disputes, ranging from divorces to civil lawsuits to very complex public policy problems to international conflicts. Many disputes that have not responded to an initial attempt at negotiation can still be settled through mediation. Even when conflicts are seemingly intractable, they sometimes yield to mediation. Mediation is of particular importance in long-running, deep-rooted conflicts, as this type of conflict is rarely resolved without such outside assistance. Even if the full range of grievances cannot be resolved, mediation is often useful for dealing with particular limited aspects of the wider conflict.

Mediation Through the U.N.

In the United Nations, the act of mediation describes the political skills utilized in efforts carried out by the United Nations Secretary-General or his representatives, through the exercise of the Secretary General's "Good Offices," without the use of force and in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter. The United Nations mediator engages in a process as a third party, when those in conflict either seek or accept the assistance of the United Nations with the aim to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict. Mediation skills, therefore, could be employed in all of the following contexts:

A United Nations mediation mandate, however, is more specifically defined. When the United Nations is called upon to mediate a resolution to a conflict, the parties accept what is called a mediation mandate. This means that they accept that the UN mediator is there to help and provide them find solutions to resolve their conflict. A United Nations mediation mandate provides the authority for the Secretary-General or his envoys to:

  • meet and listen to all parties to the conflict;
  • consult all relevant parties for the resolution of the conflict;
  • propose ideas and solutions to facilitate the resolution to the conflict.

While the final outcome has to be agreed to by the parties, being a mediator entails a much greater responsibility and involvement in the outcome of the conflict.

As in other mediations, a United Nations mediated outcome is not binding, unless the Security Council takes actions to enforce the agreement. Final implementation of the mediated agreement rests upon the commitment of the parties.

A United Nations mediation mandate is particularly useful to the parties as it gives them the opportunity to avail themselves of the experience and best practices that the United Nations, as an organisation, has gained in the field of conflict resolution.

-- Nita Yawanarajah, Project Manager, UN Peacemaker Databank, Policy Planning Unit, Department of Political Affairs, United Nations

How Mediation Works:

Although a mediator cannot force an outcome, the process is very often effective. The key is the ability of the mediator to create a more productive discussion than the parties could have had by themselves. To do this, mediators help the parties determine facts; they show empathy and impartiality with the parties; and they help the parties generate new ideas. Mediators also exercise political skill and use persuasion to get people to soften hard-line positions. Often, though not always, they have a lot of background knowledge of the issues and type of dispute. Though many mediators are highly trained and experienced, not all are professionals, and they come from many different walks of life.

Lawyers often believe that the purpose of mediation is rapid and efficient settlement of a particular case. But others disagree. Sometimes the purpose of a mediation is more to improve relationships among parties who will have to deal with each other again, or even to help them learn how best to handle conflict with other parties in the future. Often, a mediator has to learn which of these purposes is most important to the parties in a particular case, and tailor the service to match, but different mediators tend to specialize in one variety of mediation or another. (Mediation that focuses on settlement is sometimes termed problem-solving mediation; mediation that focuses more on relationships is often called transformative mediation.)

While many mediators pride themselves on their neutrality, some observers believe that it is impossible any human being to be truly neutral. Others have concluded that even biased mediators can be useful, as long as the bias is not hidden from any party and parties have an opportunity to protect themselves against its effects. International mediations are often of this type, because an effective international mediator is often a foreign minister or president of an influential country, even though everyone understands that the mediator's country has interests of its own. President Carter's mediation between Egypt and Israel was an example.

Example:

A high school student sits down with two others to help them stop fighting; many miles away, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is chairing a meeting of 15 ambassadors who are trying to avert a war. These two situations may not seem to have much in common. But both are forms of mediation.

Application:

In virtually every situation where negotiation is not going well, or where for one reason or another it seems impossible to get a real discussion going with the other party or parties, it's worth asking whether bringing in someone else might at least help get communication going. That someone else is likely to be, or act as, a mediator. While parties' understanding of this process varies from setting to setting, in some places it is now routine to use mediators where two decades ago there was no practice to speak of. For example, the courts of the U.S. State of Florida alone now refer approximately 150,000 cases per year

to mediation, rather than expecting the parties to fight their disputes out in trials or to work out settlements without third-party help. While most of these cases are likely relatively simple to resolve, routinizing mediation is one way to prevent conflicts from becoming intractable.

More information on different kinds of mediation, and mediation of intractable disputes can be found in associated essays:


Use the following to cite this article:
Honeyman, Christopher and Nita Yawanarajah. "Mediation." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/mediation>.


Additional Resources


Mass media has a direct affect on modern culture. This is especially true in the United States where the majority of mass media originates. The moods and attitudes of our society are influenced by messages delivered through mass media channels. Mass media and advertising affect our actions, thoughts, and values. We are at the point where mass media creates and reflects our culture–a mediated culture.

Society controls mass media and vice-versa

A look back through the history of our society will reveal that we were not always influenced by mass media. This is due largely to the fact that our current level of media saturation has not always existed. Television, the most popular mass media medium, was less predominant in the 1960s and 1970s. Even if you were one of the fortunate families to own a television set, only three main channels existed. Additionally, a few public broadcasting and independent stations were in operation. Radio and television shows in the 1960s were targeted to an audience with very high moral values. The audience demographic consisted primarily of two-parent, middle-class families. The programming was a reflection of everyday life. Families living three decades ago would never have tolerated a reality show. Television shows such as, “Leave it to Beaver” was a representation of actual middle-class life in the early 1960s. The same families gathering in front of a television set to watch a 1960s situation comedy would have never accepted the programming of today. Our moral values in the early days of television dictated content and influenced advertising. We controlled mass media by our level of acceptance.

Still photography, motion pictures, telegraphy, radio, telephone, and television were all invented between the years 1860 and 1930. Mass media emerged into a capitalization of the leisure industries to eventually become the dominator of mental life in modern society. Adolf Hitler used radio for propaganda sparking concern that mass media could be used for mind control. Early studies of mass media by sociologists proved that media effects were direct and powerful. However, the level of influence on an individual depended on certain factors such as class and emotional state.

C. Wright Mills defines mass media as having two important sociological characteristics: first, very few people can communicate to a great number; and, second, the audience has no effective way of answering back (The Power Elite, 1956). The introduction of the internet into mainstream mass media has changed communication into a bidirectional process. Responding to email advertisements and answering messages in a chat room change Mills’ definition of mass media. The internet reaches a broad audience but has less of an impact on shaping society.

The majority of research in the 1960s was concentrated on television. Television was believed to be the most pervasive medium. The Mass Communication Theory provides research on the cultural quality of media output. D. McQuail identifies cross-media ownership, and the increasing commercialization of programming by a few select large corporations as a pattern of control. The conflict perspective aligns with this theory.

Media output is controlled and regulated by government. History has shown restrictions ranging from complete censorship to a lighter advisory regulation.

Everyone agrees that mass media is a permanent part of modern culture. The extent of the influence mass media has on our society is the cause of much debate. Both legislature and media executives combine efforts and produce reports showing that mass media is not responsible for shaping society. Sociologists and educators debate these findings and provide a more grounded, less financially influenced theory. Sociologists have three perspectives on the role of mass media in modern culture. The first, limited-effects theory, is based on the premise that people will choose what to watch based on their current beliefs. According to a study by Paul Lazarsfeld, media lacked the ability to influence or change the beliefs of average people (Escote 2008). Individuals living through the early days of mass media were more trusting of news stories. This is evident in the famous radio broadcast, “War of the Worlds.” A startling one out of six people believed we were being invaded by aliens. While the limited-effects theory, also known as the indirect effects theory, was applicable 40 years ago; society is not as naive today. Competing newscasts give us the opportunity to compare stories and accept only what is common between them. Unless the “War of the Worlds” was carried on every major mass media station, society today would recognize it as fiction. Even then, we would be skeptical until our President addressed the nation.

The class-dominant theory argues that the media is controlled by corporations, and the content–especially news content–is dictated by the individuals who own these corporations. Considering that advertising dollars fund the media, the programming is tailored to the largest marketing segment. We would never see a story that draws negative publicity and emotion to a major advertiser. The class-dominant theory in a newsroom extends beyond corporate control. A journalist with a specific agenda can alter or twist a story to suit their own needs.

The third, of the three main sociological perspectives, is the culturalist theory. As the newest theory, the culturalist theory combines both the class-dominant and limited-effects theory to claim that people draw their own conclusions. Specifically, the culturalist theory states that people interact with media and create their own meanings. Technology allows us to watch what we want and control the entire experience. We can choose to skip certain parts of a horror movie and even mute content on live news casts. People interpret the material based on their own knowledge and experience. The discussion forums in an online classroom is one example of the culturalist theory. Although all the students read the same text and study the same content, each student produces a different view based on experiences outside of the classroom. The result is a widely divergent group of posts and many opposite opinions open for discussion.

The Functionalist Perspective

Functionalists believe that mass media contributes to the benefit of society. Charles Wright (1975) identified several ways in which mass media contributes to creating equilibrium in society. He claims the media coordinate and correlate information that is valuable to the culture. The media are powerful agents of socialization. Through the media, culture is communicated to the masses. Serving society through social control, the media act as stress relievers which keep social conflicts to a minimum.

The functionalists idea of equilibrium is evident in news broadcast as well as late night drama programs. In both instances, all human acts lacking morality are reinforced by showing them as unacceptable and wrong. Crimes, such as murder, robberies, and abuse are shown as deviant behavior. Mass media make our world smaller. People gather in groups to watch, they talk about what they see, and they share the sense that they are watching something special (Schudson 1986).

Functionalists view mass media as an important function in society. Mass media can influence social uniformity on scale broader than every before. The internet reaches more individuals in most social groups more often than television or radio. Mass media has been accused of creating dysfunction. Postman (1989) argued that popular media culture undermines the educational system. Claims have been made that there is a link between television viewing and poor physical health among children.

The Conflict Perspective

Conflict theorists believe that mass media is controlled by corporations with the intent of satisfying their own agendas. News casts and sitcoms are not designed to entertain and inform, but rather to keep our interests long enough to deliver a well paid advertisement. The conflict perspective views mass media as a conduit for social coercion. The controllers of mass media use programming and advertising to influence certain social classes. Trends are introduced through mass media and mimicked by the public lending credence to the theory that coercion, domination, and change in our society is partly due to television, radio, print, and the internet. From the conflict perspective, modern mass media are instruments of social control (Sullivan 2007). While functionalists and interactionists agree that mass media is necessary, followers of the conflict perspective view mass media as a necessary evil. As instruments of social control, mass media plays an important role in shaping our society.

The Interactionist Perspective

From the interactionist perspective, mass media is used to define and shape our definitions of a given situation. This perception of reality seems to evolve as our everyday values and cultures change. A definition of the average American family from the 1950s and 1960s is drastically different from what we expect today. The mass media portrayal of family life has always been a benchmark to compare our own lives and successes. Mass media serves as our social acceptance gauge by providing symbols representing what is proper and what is unacceptable. The interactionist perspective shares similarities with the functionalist perspective. Both theories agree that mass media symbolizes a perfect society that individuals strive to emulate. Celebrities, athletes and other role models promote clothing, brands, and behavior while sometimes encouraging values and moral guidelines.

Mass media is defined as “the channels of communication in modern societies that can reach large numbers of people, sometimes instantaneously (Sullivan 2007).” Only recently has technology been advanced enough to realize so many methods of communication. Television, radio, and print were the original members of mass media. The internet brought chat-rooms, email, and the idea of social networking to an already media saturated society. Television and radio represent “push” communication. The consumer has little choice over the content streamed through the cable and onto their television. They can choose to change stations or turn off the television. The internet, specifically web sites, can only be delivered to a consumer if they have made a request to “pull” the content. Mass media has completed a paradigm shift from content and programming we chose to accept, to content designed to shape our society. In the 1960s and 1970s, society controlled mass media. Today, mass media has the single largest impact on our culture.  Guidelines for behavior, major beliefs, and values are all influenced by mass media. Every sociological theory concludes that mass media affects modern culture–a mediated culture.

References

Escote, Alixander (April 2008). Limited Effects Theory. http://www.socyberty.com/Sociology/Limited-Effects-Theory.112098

CliffsNotes.com (July 2008). The Role and Influence of Mass Media. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/topicArticleId-26957

Sullivan, Thomas J. (2007). Sociology: Concepts and Applications in a Diverse World. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wright, Charles (1975). Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective.

Schudson, Michael (1989). The Sociology of News Production. Sage Publications, Ltd.

Leon-Guerrero, Anna (2005). Social Problems: Community, Policy, and Social Action. Pine Forge Press

Mills, Charles Wright (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford Press

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *