Years ago I received a request to mediate a dispute involving a young couple who had begun divorce proceedings and needed help dividing up their affairs. They had received advice to first work with a mediator and then have their attorney formalize their agreement.

I normally don’t do divorce mediation, but agreed to help the couple. Their property was modest, their debts large and their emotions intense. The couple wanted to spend some of their time going over what had gone wrong in their relationship. They had a heated, yet satisfying and necessary, discussion about feelings of infidelity and reckless spending. After saying to one another that each no longer wanted to be in the relationship, nor attempt to reconcile it, they were ready to move on to dividing their property and debts.

It didn’t take long to deal with equity in their home, two automobiles, various expensive recreational toys, household goods and then their credit card debt. Finally, one said to the other, “But who gets the dogs?”

In almost every state pets are considered property, but their value as property doesn’t reflect their personal value, which is often priceless and irreplaceable. In some court cases, judges have actually put the dog with both parties to see who the dog would run to. Some courts have recognized the bond between a child and a dog and have ordered that the dog follow the same custody schedule as the child or award the dog to the parent who gets the most parenting time. When there are no children, some courts have ordered one person to “buy” the dog from the other.

In what was the most lengthy part of my mediation the couple finally decided that one would get two dogs who were brother and sister and the other would get the third dog. But, interestingly, while the two really had strong negative feelings about each other, they were able to work out a visitation schedule so that all three dogs could spend time together.

That mediation showed me that even parties who have strong negative feelings towards each other can work out a solution about something they both care about deeply. In this case, their four-legged companions.

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.