One community dispute resolution center once mediated a neighbor vs. neighbor dispute that was lengthy and heated. According to what I was told, one neighbor had a rooster. And as roosters do, it crowed every morning with the rising sun and then some ten or so times throughout the day.  The neighbor didn’t appreciate be awakened at daybreak by the rooster nor hearing the rooster crow during the day. The owner of the rooster did first check with city regulations and found that keeping one rooster as a pet was legal in their city, but several birds would have been in violation.

Regardless, the neighbors got into heated verbal disputes over the pet, which eventually got to physical threats towards each other, as well as the rooster. They did eventually agree to go to community mediation, which ended up lasting for hours.

The complaining neighbor explained the problem with emotional force. The responding neighbor replied that it was legal to have a rooster in their city, that it was a companion pet and that crowing is part of its natural behavior.

They could see no way to resolve the issue because of how they viewed the conflict. One was convinced they were completely entitled to have a crowing rooster; the other that the rooster needed to go. They saw no way to compromise.

In frustration, the mediator asked if the parties had investigated ways to stop the rooster from crowing. The complaining neighbor was first to answer with “Kill it!” That, of course, resulted in more dysfunctional argument.

With growing frustration the mediator suggested they do a computer search together in the mediation room. They agreed and found there is such a thing as a rooster collar which limits the airflow to the rooster’s voice box and reduces the volume of the crowing sound. It was described as painless and easily tolerated by roosters.

The complaining neighbor said, “Do you want to try it?” The rooster’s owner said, “Sure, and for a couple of bucks the conflict was over.

I use this example not to show the variety of things people get into conflict over, but as an example that mediators believe that, “it’s not always easy, but it’s usually possible,” for parties to find a mutual resolution.

Having facilitated study circles for same-sex marriage and immigration issues, I have seen how the structure this method provides makes it possible for individuals who begin the group with firm, extreme positions, are able to respectfully listen to and consider other positions by those who hold different views as individuals.

A study circle is a small group of people who meet for an extended period to discuss and explore an issue or topic with a focus on improving the listening of the participants. In the United States, study circles have been formed around issues such as race relations, same-sex marriage and immigration. It is exactly such issues about which some speakers, unwilling to listen to other views, express strong opinions. The study circle format encourages people to express their opinions and listen openly to others.

Each study circle has a leader or facilitator who remains neutral throughout the process. The facilitator does not share personal opinions. The facilitator explains that the purpose of the study circle is to deliberate on the issue in a democratic and collaborative way.

The facilitator establishes the following basic group rules:

•      All views should get a fair hearing.

•      Personal attacks are not tolerated.

•     If someone says something that offends another group member, any member of the group should feel free to explain how the comment affected him or her.

•      It is important to hear from everyone in the group. People who tend to talk a lot should make special efforts to give others the opportunity to express their views.

The facilitator monitors the group by noting who has spoken, who hasn’t spoken and what points haven’t had a fair hearing. The facilitator actually says very little. The facilitator’s comments are typically suggestions for group process. For example, rather than providing summaries for the group, the facilitator may ask a group member to summarize. And the facilitator may ensure that reticent members have the opportunity to speak.

The facilitator also assists the group’s critical thinking by ensuring that a wide range of ideas are considered. The facilitator may ask the group to consider a point of view that is not represented in its membership. The facilitator may ask the group to consider advantages and disadvantages of different points of view and may ask the group to think about the values that underlie beliefs. The facilitator is prepared to ask open-ended questions to stimulate discussion.

Study circles highlight the difference between listening to argue and listening to understand.  Some would say, “listening to understand,” is what is needed more of in today’s world.