During mediation sessions, mediators hear disputants talk about the history of their conflict. Mediators often note how firm and fixed the disputant’s narrative is. And it is just that firm and fixed understanding of the history that makes it difficult for the disputants to reimagine the future.

The “Theory of Narrative Identity” can help mediators (and anyone) reconstruct their client’s past in order to formulate the future. According to this theory, our reconstructed past, our perceived present and our imagined future all co-exist in our minds at the same time. In other words, the past, present and future in some sense are happening simultaneously in our minds.

Disputants typically have developed a negative understanding of the past of their conflicts. It is just that disavowing thinking that makes the present and future difficult to see in a positive light.

Quite simply, then, if and when we are able to change the meaning and narrative of our past, we then effectively change the narrative of our present and future.

To illustrate this I will use the example of a roleplay dispute I implement during mediation training. The case is simple: After the passing of both their parents, two siblings find themselves dealing with many personal and financial issues. There is professional help available for guidance, but as happens in so many families it is the small things, such as dividing up personal effects, that can ignite conflicts that last for years. I have dealt with families who nourish harsh feelings for long periods over a dispute about a parent’s silverware. For some of these, at least, it is not the value of the item, but what the item represents to the parties.

In this roleplay, the disputants often take positions based on past injustices. In other words, they create a negative past to justify the conflict over a dining room set, a bed or jewelry. Most new mediators try to help the siblings move to some sort of compromise, dividing the possessions in some near-equal way. Doing so from the perspective of the “Theory of Narrative Identity” just reinforces a negative past, present and future.

Alternatively, a mediator could ask each sibling to reflect back on their shared life story and relationship. A simple question such as, “What was it like for the two of you to sit at the table with your parents.” One party might choose to tell a story of a positive experience, which can help them to reconstruct their past and at the same time any current conflicts. For example, even in roleplays imaginative outcomes can happen. One sibling received the dining room table, but agreed to host a family dinner each Thanksgiving; another pair agreed that if it should ever happen that they no longer wanted an item they received, the item would go to the other.

The “Theory of Narrative Identity” reminds us that disputants, and each of us, hold a key to our presents and futures by reimagining our pasts, because what really matters is not the reality of the past, but our version of it.

A recent opinion piece written by an attorney on an internet legal affairs site describes two mediations—one successful and one unsuccessful.

Attempting to determine what accounted for the unsuccessful mediation, the author suggests that the difference had nothing to do with the legal strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions, but everything to do with the negotiation strategies of the parties’ counsels and the abilities of the mediator.

With due respect to the attorney author, I look at the situation he describes differently.

The author contends that the initial reason the mediation failed was that one party’s counsel was unwilling to consider reasonable counteroffers. I think there are two alternative explanations. First, the mediator may not have helped the party understand the consequences for not settling. Known as, “worst alternative to a negotiated agreement,” is a mediator tool which helps parties in mediation stop and consider the options other than reaching an agreement. All too frequently in the intensity of a mediation parties lose sight of the consequences of not settling. The mediator can help parties put this back into perspective. Second, a mediator does not force people to settle. Mediation is based on self-determination and if a party, or both parties, are not motivated to settle, knowing the consequences of not settling, then that is likely the outcome. Mediators do not consider that as failed result.  While the parties did not settle in the mediation they had the opportunity to hear more of each other’s issues, demands and interests. They may, for example, decide to return to mediation at a later time.

The author also contends that in what he refers to as the failed mediation, the mediator was not experienced in the subject matter of the dispute. Again, I have an alternative perspective. In fact, I often say it is an advantage to not have knowledge of the subject matter of the dispute. The uninformed mediator must ask more questions of the disputing parties. Not only is the mediator hearing the answer, the parties themselves are hearing each other speak. And, they often learn that they were operating from a different set of “facts.” In other words, the obvious is not to assume that disputing parties each understand each other. And, in my experience, one of the most talented and successful mediators I ever worked with often feigned ignorance of the subject matter. She would ask questions like, “What exactly does that mean?” She was actually an expert in the subject and knew the answer but wanted the disputing parties to share information. She was very successful using this tactic.

So, I would say if the disputing parties said their mediator wasn’t well informed, that may have actually witness a very successful mediator who helped them speak to one another and find a path to resolution, whether they realized it or not.

The skill of the true artist often looks easy to the unskilled.