Dispute Resolution Bookshelf
The Conflict Paradox
By Bernard Mayer
A Simple Metaphor for More Sophisticated Thinking
about Conflict
Reviewed by Deborah Thompson Eisenberg
P
eople tend to view conflict in dualistic, eitheror terms. And the higher the stakes, the more
we tend to simplify conflict into categorical
opposites: one side is right, and the other is wrong;
we must fight or cooperate, use reason or emotion,
stand firm or compromise our principles.
In The Conflict Paradox, Bernard Mayer combines
conflict theory, psychology and neuroscience, current
events, and rich examples from his decades of experience as a neutral to challenge us to think of conflict
in less simplistic ways. In most instances, he writes,
“effective conflict work requires a more sophisticated,
nuanced, and complex approach” that recognizes
the “genuine paradoxes” present in every conflict.
He explores seven such dilemmas at the core of most
disputes and urges us to embrace the idea that there
is unity among these seemingly divergent choices.
The most familiar polarity is competition and
cooperation. In negotiation theory, these are often presented as distinct styles or strategies. Yet every conflict
involves the dynamic interplay between competition
and cooperation — often described as a “dance.” We
cannot have one without the other. Mayer describes
how conflicts involve other seemingly opposing
elements that are coexisting and interdependent:
optimism and realism, avoidance and engagement;
principle and compromise; emotion and logic; neutrality and advocacy; and autonomy (independence) and
community (interdependence with others in our lives).
To work through conflict effectively, Mayer urges
us to think beyond a bifurcated view of these elements, defining the conflict paradox as the constant,
dynamic interplay of these purportedly contradictory
concepts. When we see that these are not diametrically opposed choices but simultaneous conditions,
we will appreciate the conflict paradox.
Conflict scholars and practitioners have traditionally
approached conflict through “either-or” metaphors
such as positions versus interests, distributive versus
40
DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE | WINTER 2016
integrative bargaining, win/win versus win/lose. Mayer
offers “paradox” as a new metaphor for conflict theory, a metaphor that helps us understand the intricate,
complicated nature of human conflict, which does not
play out in clear-cut dichotomies. He writes:
To develop our capacity to engage and intervene in conflict constructively, courageously,
wisely, and effectively, our thinking needs to
become more complex, and yet clearer. Often
the first step is to give up a simplistic clarity,
thereby increasing our confusion (and sometimes temporarily diminishing our effectiveness),
but in the process deepening our capacity to
consider the true complexity of conflict.
Mayer’s book is targeted primarily at what he calls
“conflict specialists,” including “mediators, advocates,
coaches, facilitators, and collaborative practitioners.”
The book can also inspire us to reflect on our own
lives because like so many others, when we’re in the
middle of our own conflicts, we tend to have myopic
vision. The more important the conflict, the more
likely we are to believe in the rightness of our position
and principles and in the wrongness of the opposing
side. As Mayer explains: “[t]he paradox here is that
the more we engage in a conflict, the stronger the
pull to polarize our understanding. The more we want
to move in a constructive direction, the more important it is to see beyond the polarities.”
Experienced neutrals will appreciate Mayer’s
integration of conflict theory, most of which will be
familiar, with his enlightening personal reflections
from his decades of practice as a conflict intervener.
New mediators can find solace — and hope — in
Mayer’s explanation of how the tensions at work in
every conflict make the job of conflict intervener so
challenging and yet so rewarding. With the conflict
paradox metaphor in mind, neutrals may be more
effective in helping parties in conflict move from
simplistic adversarial thinking to a more complex and
constructive analysis of the situation.
The Conflict Paradox is an ideal book for litigators
and judges who have transitioned to the role of neutral,
lawyers counseling clients through a dispute, or anyone
else who tends to approach conflict in dualistic, “eitheror” ways (which may be most of us in American society).
In our adversarial legal system, conflict is processed and
simplified. The theory is that from the clash of opposing
sides, sifted through the sieve of the law, justice will
emerge. Lawyers, therefore, serve a critical role in packaging their clients’ stories in ways that are supported by
relevant, provable facts and legal authorities. Following
rules of procedure and evidence, lawyers present these
streamlined, competing arguments to the court. The
court considers the credibility of the polarized accounts
of the facts and applicable law and decides which side
prevails. This precedent then guides others who face
similar conflicts in the future. In this way, the legal system makes conflict — at least those that can be stated
as legal causes of action — appear to be more simple,
clear, predictable, and solvable by the court.
When I teach mediation theory and conflict
resolution skills to law students, lawyers, and judges,
I struggle to find ways to help them understand the
complex dynamics of conflict that play out in the
mediation room as compared to the courtroom. With
the rules of self-determination, voluntariness, and neutrality driving the mediation process, the resolution of
conflict does not always play out in linear, rule-based,
and orderly ways. The parties vacillate — sometimes
suddenly and unpredictability — between and among
the polarities of competition and cooperation, emotion and reason, hopelessness and optimism, legal
standards and other standards based on personal
conceptions of morality or fairness.
The contradictory tensions operating in human
conflicts outside of the courtroom can be perplexing
for law-trained individuals accustomed to resolving disputes through the clarifying lens of the law. Mediators
and attorneys may become frustrated if the disputing
parties do not seem to act “reasonable” or evaluate
their case through the filter of the law. Mayer’s paradox
metaphor can help law-trained professionals appreciate
the nuanced complexity of conflict intervention work
outside the courtroom, assisting attorney-mediators
in developing more expansive and strategic thinking
about potential interventions. Likewise, attorneys who
appreciate the conflict paradox may be more patient
and effective in counseling clients through the settlement negotiation process.
Mayer’s conflict paradox metaphor applies far
beyond legal disputes or individual conflicts. Mayer,
who came to his work as a conflict intervener in part
because of his strong commitment to social justice
and experience as an activist, weaves examples of
international conflicts and public policy debates
throughout the book, showing the need for more
complex, less polarized thinking in policy contexts.
I read The Conflict Paradox in the middle of important conversations, in my hometown of Baltimore and
nationally, about the interaction between law enforcement and African American citizens. For many, this
issue presents stark “either-or” propositions. Because
the stakes are so high for all of us, we risk becoming so
polarized and mistrustful that we cannot move forward
constructively. If, however, we embrace a more “paradoxical view” of the conflict — recognizing the unity of
seemingly competing, dichotomous perspectives and
being open to our own confusion to gain greater clarity
about the complexity of the problem — perhaps we
can address the matter more effectively.
As Mayer concludes in the last paragraph of his book:
We need diversity, we need complexity, we
need clarity, and we need simplicity. We also
need the courage to advocate fiercely for
social change and for particular policies that
we believe will contribute to that change,
even as we grapple with the limits of our own
understanding. Being clear and yet open to our
confusion is essential to our survival.
For mediators, conflict interveners, advocates,
and citizens in a democracy, The Conflict Paradox
provides a simple metaphor that can guide us through
more complex thinking and sophisticated problemsolving for all our conflicts. ■
Deborah Thompson Eisenberg is Professor
of Law and Director of the Center for Dispute
Resolution at the University of Maryland
Francis King Carey School of Law. She
researches, writes, and teaches in the areas
of dispute resolution and employment law
and also mediates civil and employment
matters and provides professional trainings about mediation
and other conflict resolution topics. She can be reached at
[email protected].
WINTER 2016 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE
41