As I continue in my research, a unique and different mediation or conflict intervention model is found in Jay Rothman’s Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. Rothman’s model is the ARIA model which follows the flow of Adversarial Framing to Resonance (Re-framing) to Invention (collaborative solution making) and Action (implementation and join planning).
Most negotiation resources center around positions and interests, yet a lot of the deepest and most protracted conflict is identity driven. Meaning that there are core needs that reflect deeply a person or group’s sense of identity. Sometimes interest-based negotiation is inadequate to address identity-based conflict because there is more at stake when it involves identity. You can’t just “split the difference” or “meet in the middle” when there is so much as stake. This is a nuance that is often overlooked, especially when it involves ethnic identity. I’ve seen countless organizational conversations focused on trying to figure something out, but there was a real lack of awareness of how identity was contributing to the situation.
What’s interesting about this theory is the intentional effort at the beginning of an intervention or conflict mediation to surface all the latent identity tensions between parties or groups. It’s basically trying to get parties to re-enact, in a safe container, the ongoing pattern they are stuck in and surface the key underlying needs as well as generate intrinsic motivation to work towards something better. Then there is an effort to “re-frame” that identity in a way that broadens identity so each party can begin to “resonate” with each other in ways that they see how much they share in common. This is where empathy is fostered, but Rothman calls it an “analytical empathy” in that it’s not as much emotional empathy, but the ability to understand the other party in context – towards a recognition that the other party’s positions have some kind of contextual legitimacy. After this, movement goes towards joint problem solving and joint implementation.
There’s a lot I like about this model, particularly when it comes to identity-based conflict related to substantive issues. But I have questions about culture in terms of where this approach would be effective or ineffective. I think it’s a good model for much of the western world. There’s examples in the books involving the middle-east. But this approach would need a lot more nuance in Asia it seems to me, mostly because the model reflects a fairly direct approach in terms of communication and process.
The book had some of the best descriptions of identity-based conflict I’ve seen so far, so lot of really helpful content in this that is helpful for thinking about high intensity conflict situations between groups.
