A Humanistic Approach to Mediation and Dialogue: An Evolving Transformative Practice

• Author: Mark Umbreit,Ted Lewis
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21130
• Published date: 01 September 2015
• Date: 01 September 2015

C R Q, vol. 33, no. 1, Fall 2015 3

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21130

ARTICLES

A Humanistic Approach to Mediation and Dialogue:

An Evolving Transformative Practice

Ted Lewis

Mark Umbreit

e humanistic approach to mediation developed in parallel to Bush and

Folger’s transformative mediation in the 1990s. While fully harmoniz-

ing with transformative mediation, humanistic mediation emphasizes

a greater departure from skill-based techniques and gives less attention

to problem solving. By highlighting the humanizing capacities of medi-

ators, parties, and communication processes, the humanistic approach

deepens a dialogue process as it fosters good mediator presence and the

uninterrupted fl ow of “heart language” between parties. Nine areas of

practice, including preparation meetings, nondirective mediation, and

use of silence, are presented in their applicability to both restorative

justice and dispute resolution contexts.

Twenty years ago,  ePromise of Mediation by Bush and Folger (1994)

revealed a growing awareness in the fi elds of conflict resolution and

restorative justice that the strongest resolution between mistrusting par-

ties is primarily a matter of internal shifts rather than a matter of external

settlements. At that time, the authors also recognized how the transforma-

tive potentialities within mediation held broader implications for social

harmony and systemic change. Ten years later, the revised edition of  e

Promise of Mediation (Bush and Folger 2005) highlighted how the decade

since the fi rst edition had brought about a greater acceptance for the trans-

formational model. More practice and research were confi rming that par-

ties left sessions with “a fi rmer connection with each other and a greater

awareness of their own potential resources—resources they could draw

from when confronted with [future] confl icts” (34).