Silence and Survival in Mediation

In his article, Ioan Marc Jones charts his own transformation from self-described compulsive opiner and conversational narcissist to thoughtful, active listener. Jones has used this opportunity for personal growth to make him more effective in work meetings as well as in his personal relationship but his narrative is replete with learning for the mediator.

Jones begins with compelling statistics on the differences between the way men and women communicate and how they might use this space in a conversation or discussion. Conversations reflect, in an everyday way, the differentiation of group members; all too often these everyday interactions are the micro-level mechanisms through which wider structural inequalities in society are maintained. Literature frequently cites that men dominate women by frequently interrupting and by taking up more speaking time. Jones cites a famous study by the University of California, Santa Barbara,  which observed that in a series of recorded public conversations between men and women, 48 interruptions occurred, and 46 of which came from men.

Although this study did not concur, finding no pattern of gender dynamics on interruptions, it is important for mediators to pay attention to such gender dynamics on conversational interactions, and the power structures that may be illuminated, be these gender based or due to workplace seniority, or some other form of inequality, such as class or ethnicity.  More importantly such research underscores the vital importance of those individual conversations in a mediation, where participants are allowed to have uninterrupted time to describe what has happened in their own words and in their own experiences.

Mediators will be familiar with the fight or flight model used to explain conflict but Jones presents some interesting perspectives on how communication style and pattern can be a symptom of that fight or flight response. Most notably, interruptions are usually defined in conversational research, as an attempt to gain the floor, to dominate or turn the conversation to the interrupter and Jones explains that this results in a dopamine flood when the conversation and attention is successfully gained. Interrupting, then is a tactic of gaining power; the skilled and experienced mediator (or conversationist) recognises this as a power grab- the fight response.

Drilling down more deeply into interruption, the quest for dominance in a conversation, can also be a tactic of defence to an imagined response. It is often observed in our listening-poor world, that behind the scenes of a conversational interaction, is a series of pre-emptive thoughts, defending our points against anticipated rebuttal, and plotting the points we will make, not in response to the speaker, (often in complete neglect of listening to another’s point!) but again to gain the floor and dominate the conversation.

Over talking and talking loudly can also be a symptom of an individual who has gone into Darwinian survival mode. The need to fill a silence stems from our psychosocial wiring – to avoid the perception of awkwardness or discomfort in social interactions, which would jeopardise primary needs for belonging and connection, on which both group and individual survival depend. The need to fill the space can seem like a very urgent need indeed because overtalking and talking loudly stem from that evolutionary need to maintain social identities through some form of interactions, even if uncomfortable, superfluous and superficial.

The solution to these innate and reactive evolutionary needs is silence. Jones charts his own experiments with pausing from the urge to make a noise in an interaction, and disrupt that hard wired response for interruptions and overtalking that is symptomatic of a conversationalist in survival mode. For the mediator the use of silence as an active listening tool, emphasises its use in the process of the mediation. In those individual meetings, when silence is used to indicate full and rapt attention, this fosters empathy, building trust between the mediator and participant. Silence allows the fight-flight response to be turned down, so that trust and openness from the individual meetings then lays the groundwork for a safe space in the mediation where difficult issues can be discussed, feelings explained, and fruitful solutions explored.

Silence is also an equaliser, bestowing on mediation participants, equality in the form of dignifying their individual contributions by active listening. This in turn thwarts the invisible power dynamics that characterise conversational patterns and conflicts. The space of silence, created and held by the mediator, is a potent antidote to dynamics of structural inequalities, that are both symptom and cause of conflicts. It also diverts from the binary positions of mediation participants, encouraging cooperation and to jointly own their outcomes.

By validating the experiences of individual mediation participants, with full presence and focus, silence circumvents the innate fight or flight survival mode, that drives the conflict as well as conversational obstacles. Silence, in the manner of active and full listening, imbues the interaction with importance, and even reverence, and this modelling of a norm, encourages mediation participants to reciprocate and in turn, be respectful. The iterative axiom, that to be a good, empathetic listener, one needs to be empathetically listened to, is accomplished through the active listening and judicious use of silence. By powerfully unseating the Darwinian survival patterns that fuel conflict, silence has a butterfly effect on the mediation process, paradoxically amplifying its contribution the more it is used.