ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on mediation as practiced within countries in the AsiaPacific region and will address three broad areas of concern. The first area is the tendency for dominant Western discourses on mediation to marginalize or subordinate the knowledges of other cultural groups that have informed conflict resolution practices for centuries, such as those of indigenous communities in Australia and of other traditional cultures in the Asia-Pacific region. Dominant Western mediation theories and practices have emanated mainly from the United States of America and tend to be linear, staged, rational, solution-focused and individualistic in orientation. With globalization, information technology and the increasingly interdependent nature of relationships between groups and nations there has also been an upsurge of interest in formal mediation in many Asian and Pacific countries and Western trainers have been invited to assist with the implementation of Western models of mediation in formal systems in those countries. This chapter addresses the concern that Western mediation trainers engage in a ‘residue of imperialism when they attempt to transfer their mediation models to other cultures as the right way to resolve conflict’ (Lederach 1995: 3). In this chapter, I argue for more inclusive approaches to mediation and
mediation training that build on the strengths of local, traditional practices, within a broader social justice and human rights framework. In the past two decades, theorists have raised awareness of the impact of culture on the mediation process and the culturally complex systems of meaning that third parties and parties in conflict bring to mediation (Merry 1989; Avruch et al. 1991; Lederach 1995; LeBaron 2003). Many Western definitions of mediation, for example, still refer to the need for the third party to be ‘neutral’, ignoring the potential for mediation to perpetuate racism (Cobb and Rifkin 1991), sexism, privilege and disadvantage. Michelle LeBaron asserts that there are ‘no culture-neutral ways to think of or respond to conflict. Cultural fluency is thus integral to bridging conflict’ (2003: 275). I have also argued for mediators to be aware of the complexities of culture and the need to use elicitive and reflexive approaches to mediation training and practice (Bagshaw 1996, 2003b, 2006a). This chapter expands these arguments.
