Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett

7/28/2019 Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett

1/20

1 | P a g e

Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting: Mediation as a Full Contact Multi-dimensional Encounter

There is nothing more practical than a good theory

James C. Maxwell (later reiterated by Kurt Lewin)

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality, they are not

Albert Einstein

Polkinghorn and Jarrett 2013

DRAFT for discussion but not to be cited

Introduction

Modern physics, martial arts, and the practice of mediation have a lot in common. In

fact, the success of mediation as an emerging profession may well depend on how well it

navigates the nitty-gritty, fluid realities to which both the discipline of physics and martial arts

have aptly applied themselves. While good mediators need not become physicists or martial

artists, the former can usefully apply knowledge and skills developed in these disciplines to

improve mediation through the careful application of their practice metaphors. Part I of this

paper explores the notion of complexity and theory development in modern physics, and in

particular, the views of James Maxwell and Albert Einstein. Part II discusses the insights on

human interaction developed in the practice of martial arts and, in particular, the views of

notable practitioner, Bruce Lee and Sun Tzu . Part III applies these collective insights to the

development of a more expanded and value-added mediation theory and practice.

I. Insights from Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg and the Quantum UniverseIn the world of physics James C. Maxwell and Albert Einstein were far ahead of their

contemporaries. Each had the uncanny ability to solve age old and perplexing problems that

members of their field struggled to understand. We also know from biographical research that

Einstein liked to conduct thought experiments (Isaacson, 2007) that helped him grapple with

the development of new conceptual frameworks as well as to explore ideas that, at the time,

couldnt be empirically verified due to lack of advanced precision instrumentation. Einstein

used his imagination to maneuver around limitations. Likewise, Maxwell experimented with all

sorts of materials, even toys of all things, to unravel, understand and then demonstrate

complex theoretical principles (Cropper, 2001). Maxwell tinkered with toys to make

discoveries. The results of these thought experiments and playful activities both designed to

explore as yet fully imaginable ideas produced stupendous theoretical breakthroughs.


2/20

2 | P a g e

Indeed, their breakthroughs increased exponentially our ability to explore and exploit the

physical world.1

Maxwell and Einstein played by different rules than the contemporaries of their day.

They re-examined the predominant thinking and, to some extent, shed some of the prevailing

theoretical constraints within physics in order to explore other paths of inquiry. In other words,

they were not fixed in their thinking; they were fluid in their ingenuity and thereby encouraged

the discipline to embrace the nature ofcomplexitywithin the physical universe.

As Einstein and Maxwell understood, theory can bind or, alternatively, expand thinking.

Theory can play a useful role in the development of disciplines and schools of thought. In one

sense, the development of theory for theory sake as a purist pursuit can yield useful results that

allows for the exploration of hypothetical ideas that cant be researched perhaps at that time

- in the traditional positivist manner of the scientific method.2

On the other hand, theory is but

one part of the knowledge equation. All areas of scholarly inquiry possess a combination of

theory, research and some type of applied or practical components. An applied theory is one

that is meant to be used to solve problems; it is, by design, practical.3

Arguably, Maxwell is

right in his assertion that there is nothing more useful than a good theory. When all three

areas of scholarly activity, i.e. theory, research and applied/practical, are working in

synchronicity and each component informs the others of new developments and ideas, then

the chances of creating large leaps in the advancement of knowledge and practice are likely to

increase. In less organized disciplines or fields of study, where these three components are not

well coordinated and thus do not interact as well, the ability to advance knowledge and

practice can be less orderly or have less of an impact on knowledge.4

In this case, Einstein is

1Maxwell and Einstein epitomize the ideal scientist in Thomas Kuhns (1962) theory behind the structures of

scientific revolutions. Each produced radical, jarring changes i.e. paradigm shifts - in the basic knowledge and

understanding in the fields of physics. Each radically altered several long held scientific beliefs going back to Sir

Isaac Newton and each changed the way all humans understood the world and how we interact with it. Likewise,

new knowledge attained from their theoretical breakthroughs have had untold impacts on all aspects of everyday

life from the development of all electric devices known to human kind; space travel, communication, medicine,

energy production, etc. Likewise, by approaching normal physic problems from unique perspectives each

altered the fundamental approach and procedures used in problem solving used by physicists.

2Indeed, the paradox of pure theoretical work often times relies on assuming things that cant be empirically

verified as true i.e. they exist as theorized, which is, to some extent an anti-positivist stance. Indeed, intuition

and introspection, realms of thinking whereby people try to make some sense of the physical and social world are

often rejected by the pure positivists yet, to some degree, even positivist have to start somewhere with their

theoretical thinking even if it is a hunch.

3That is, of course, theory that is derived from sound logic and hypotheses testing and not that derived from

ideological dogma such as was seen in Soviet science of the 1920-1930s where superb scientific research was

either suppressed and the scientist punished because the findings did not comport with communist ideology or the

results were manipulated to uphold a tenet of the orthodoxy. The same can be said of Nazi science.

4At this stage in the development of the field of mediation theory is starting to develop into c lusters based on

areas of application (community, international), types of mediation (behavioral styles). The research portion of the


3/20

3 | P a g e

correct; in theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality they are not. We suggest in

the social sciences this adage should be considered a quasi-law.

The mark of both Einstein and Maxwell was their ability to think outside the box and

embrace and indeed intiate paradigmatic shifts in their fields. The field of contemporary

mediation is in need of thinkers who are willing to embrace the quality and kind of

paradigmatic shifts associated with these individuals. But what would a paradigmatic shift in

mediation theory look like? Thomas Kuhn has mapped the shifts in science that occurred as a

result of dramatic shifts in worldview. He argues that disciplines continue along, building

toward critical mass in consensus concerning opinion. At a given tipping point, in this process,

opinion is overturned dramatically and replaced by a new paradigmatic view. Its as if the

discipline re-starts, reboots, and reformulates itself. An entire reformulation of mediation

would arguably entail the recognition of mediation as a complex adaptive system in which

practitioners could adopt flexible contingent strategies responsive to moment-to-moment

interactions with their clients. So how do we get there?

Arguably, contemporary mediation is lacking a good social theory within which to

embed the practice. Social theory is designed to predict, among other things, future

behavior/action or likely outcomes of social processes. However social science has limitations.

The theorist must take into account several challenges that the hard sciences do not. The first is

the subject matter. Trying to predict human behavior (individual or group) is fraught with

uncertainty and can lead to fallible theory and sometimes unpredictable outcomes.5

The hard

sciences contend with more predictable subject matter such as the amount of arc light will

bend around the gravitational pull of a star. The second challenge centers on the instruments

or tools used by social scientists. Third, and more problematic, is that social theory is impacted

to a greater extent than the hard sciences by researcher biases that include, among other

things, ideological agendas, self-serving prophesies or wishful thinking and a host of other

forms of human induced fallacies of logic.6

These can creep into complex theories rendering

field is slowly gaining some coherent order especially in mediation process and program evaluation ( e.g. works by

McDermott et al, Bingham, Umbreit, McEwen).

5In game theory the starting point for all experiments rests on several assumptions one of which that is each

player is a rational actor someone who will act in his or her best self-interest. The problem with this assumption

is that, in reality, individuals and groups often ignore or repudiate such conditions and assumptions that

supposedly comprise a unified idea of what rational behavior should be. More importantly, theories that rely on

rational actor models or some other type of pre-determined or deterministic thinking often fail to account for

several types of behavior seen in conflict. Not being able to account for emotionally driven behavior, rituals and

traditions that have lost their original meaning, self-sacrifices and acts of altruism are just a few that could lead to

several types of behavior or interaction that might be labeled as irrational or non-rational by some theorist but are

easily understood and logical and rational to others. Likewise, at a macro theoretical, deterministic thinking has

led to several monumental atrocities including Nazism and Communism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were

ideologically illiterate to fallible human behavior.

6Unfortunately, the pursuit of truth through science isnt always a clear cut path. There are instances of the

seeping influence of individual scientists ideology and politics creeping into scientific discourse, the most recent

and notable being the issue of climate change where methods, data and findings are attacked both for relevant


4/20

4 | P a g e

them more akin to perspectives than theory that incorporates testable hypotheses. Even so, in

all areas of science, it is a requirement that theories be tested over time and place to establishreliability of outcomes and validity of instruments and tools. Likewise, good science dictates

that when retesting a hypothesis one should not do so in expectation of replication or worse to

actively search for confirming data but to actively challenge the result in what Popper (1963)

refers to as falsification. In this framework Popper states that if the idea is indeed false it can

be shown to be by direct observation. If the results show the hypothesis to be false then the

researcher can reject the hypothesis in its entirety or modify the theoretical framework to

account for the data anomaly. Because of this many social theories need to be tested often as

new behavioral patterns or social dynamics may arise that requires modification of the theory.

One of the challenges in studying social conflict is the numerous ways it is expressed.

Combatants may act rationally which makes our job as researchers more manageable but that

doesnt necessarily imply consistent behavior or conduct at all times.7

Testing theory is a

hallmark of the sciences and yet, sometimes, theory doesnt capture the essence of what isbeing studied. In the case of mediation we believe this is likely the case. In order to address

this concern this article takes aim at the development of another theoretical perspective that

examines mediation processes through a lens that may be more fluid in regard to the

interpretation of social interactions.8

Herbert Blumers theory of symbolic interaction examines

the meaning, language and thought of individuals in situ in their attempts to make sense of

event or situations they encounter. Conflict often arises when there are misses i.e.

scholarly reasons as well as slightly veiled ideological and personal reasons. The attendant fundamental

misattribution and personalization of these pitch battles shows science to be a human endeavor fraught with

human imperfections stirred by the hijacking of scientists and science as proxies in political battles. See Mann,

Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line. New York: Columbia

University Press. Likewise, there are cases of battles arising between cliques within specific scientific communities

such a prime example relating to the crown of thorns (star fish) outbreak in the Pacific Ocean that periodically

wipes out huge areas of coral reefs. See Sapp, Jan (1999) What is Natural: Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford

University Press.

7On the rational end of conflict analysis we find game theory. This is where parties act with enlightened self

interest to make choices in deciding on courses of action. It is usually simple dichotomous decisions to cooperate

or defect. Rational thinking predicated on self-interest is the foundation of the logic within which decisions are

made. There are several challenges to game theory and conflict analysis. Contextual elements impact decision

making and thus limits the ability to accurately analyze conflict. Likewise, people do irrational things such as

sacrifice their lives for others as was evident in the Aurora movie theatre killings in the summer of 2012 as well as

the President of the Sikh Temple in Michigan who rushed the killer welding an automatic weapon with a butter

knife. Perhaps the biggest disconnect with game theory is that it has to ignore some aspects of reality and rely

more so on forced choice decisions which limits creativity, the ability to bring options to the table or somehow

add value and other means to reframe and resolve conflicts that have been locked in a structural maze for some

time. For those interested in an enjoyable read on game theory we recommend Prisoners Dilemma: John Von

Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb. William Poundstone (1992). New York: Anchor Books. For a

more academic read we suggest Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Roger B. Meyerson (1991) Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.

8Brian J., we might want to frame the argument using symbolic interactionism.

Comment [BP1]: How is this for a wa

Blumer and Symbolic Interaction? Feel f

it out.


5/20

5 | P a g e

miscommunication of meaning, language and thought among individuals. There are many

other symbolic interaction derived misses that lead to conflict such as misperception,misattribution and miscommunication to name just a few.

This perspective places an emphasis on the meaning of human interaction and thus

provides an alternative to theories relating to mediation that focuses more strictly on pre-

determined behavior or models of conduct.9

The reason for studying interaction instead of

behavior can provide numerous advantages. The first is that the reality of studying conflict

interaction among individuals or groups might not unfold within a pre-determined taxonomy of

behavior but more so by situation specific action-reaction or negotiated interaction whereby

the observer begins to identify situation specific patterns that lead to the development of

testable hypotheses within the data. Second, there are always problems with employing a

preexisting set of principles that purport to measure and/or regulate behavior of mediators

and, to a lesser degree, disputants. One problem is that the mere existence of taxonomy may

influence what it is the observer thinks he or she is witnessing when there is always the chancethat the actual meaning behind the observed interaction, conduct or behavior is misinterpreted

or perhaps even not recorded.10

Heisenberg in the physics discipline demonstrated that in the act of observing the

observer acts on the world changing what s/he can actually observe. (footnote and cite)

Heisenberg called this the Uncertainty Principle. At the subatomic level the act of observing

changes the observed. The discipline of quantum physics has come to recognize what we as

mediators are yet to fully grasp. (Explain metaphorically).

What we are trying to avoid here is the reproduction of yet another behavior driven

perspective that is predicated on pre-existing constructs. The concern here is that the alleged

properties or characteristics of mediator conduct are often driven in a backwards fashion from

9Interaction and behavior are closely related although the distinction between these concepts is crucial to an

understanding of conflict. Interaction focuses on the dynamics that go on between individuals or groups while

behavior focuses on the dynamic on one side of the conflict dyad. Behavior has an individual orientation while

interaction implies two or more individuals engaged in some activity and social conflict, by definition, impoied two

or more parties in an interdependent relationship.

10More specifically, one challenge we see occurring with predetermined taxonomies is that individuals who

employ them may fall prey to two cognitive challenges. The first occurs when viewing a mediation interaction

whereby the observer attempts to place certain episodes into a given taxonomic code where the activity being

observed does not neatly fit the properties of the code. It is akin to jamming reality (the round peg) into the

data category (the square hole) and not adjusting the hole (properties list) to reflect the evolving definition of the

category. An even more troubling problem concern is when the observer, for whatever reason, engages in the

logical fallacy of the self-fulfilling prophecywherein if a person has a pre-determined idea what might occur they

are more likely to observe it. This form of foreshadowing poses a serious research dilemma and is inconsistent

with pursuing an understanding of the meaning, language and thought of individuals interacting in a conflict

scenario or a mediation process. One way to control for this is to train several researchers in behavior coding and

to then establish a high inter-coder reliability (Kappa) score and to then let them code mediation interaction (i.e.

mediator and party behaviors) and then examine the level of agreement among the codes.


6/20

6 | P a g e

a pre-determined mediation style or taxonomy to the mediators behavior. What we are

suggesting here is to reverse the entire research endeavor to produce a perspective predicatedon the study of thefluid interaction occurring in mediation rather than a taxonomic behavior

based approach. In other words, start from scratch and see what it is mediators do to help or

hinder the process and from those data findings devise and set of characteristics of effective

mediation encased within a theory of interaction. This approach to the study of mediation

interaction requires a special flexible theoretical origin such as that found in grounded theory11

(Glaser and Strauss, 1969) as well as a more robust method of data collection and analysis such

as that found in analytic induction12

(Znaniecki, 1934). The strength of analytic induction is that

it requires the researcher to employ both deductive and inductive iterative thinking instead of

more limited traditional positivistic driven deduction. The argument for induction is that the

subject matter focuses squarely on human interaction being the source for the creation of

interactive patterns. This is a more labor intensive approach and it can take several series of

observations to gather enough data before the researcher can go into the data and start to

examine it for associations and patterns that can be tested in the next round of data collection.

II. Insights from Bruce Lee and the World of Martial Arts InteractionBruce Lee was an inspirational actor, martial artist, and social philosopher. Like

Einstein and Maxwell, he initiated paradigmatic shifts in the martial arts and the relationship

of society toward martial arts. Lees work can be seen as a dramatic shift and expansion of

earlier treatises in martial arts, such as that of Sun Tzu. Sun Tzus work is essential in

understanding social conflict but it needed the paradigmatic shift introduced by Bruce Lee to

provide the benefits we now see form Lees work. Long before Bruce Lee there was Sun Tzu,

the ancient Chinese military general who is credited by many scholars as being the author of

The Art of War.13

This noted military masterpiece provides insightful lessons on how to

effectively win battles. At first blush The Art of War is a treatise on military strategy and yet

there is much more to it than first meets the eye. It is also a brilliant philosophical foundation

for the prevention and effective management of conflict.14

This assertion may seem odd to

some in the conflict intervention field. It is not meant to be provocative or to create

dissonance. All one has to do is first be open to reading it and second doing so with a focus on

conflict prevention a prime military strategy we might add to fully understand that much of

conflict interaction involves pre-conflict activity.

11Describe grounded theory

12Describe analytic induction strengths and weaknesses.

13Some scholars believe that The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu and later expounded upon by his descendent

Sun Bin. Others believe Sun Bin is the real author while still others believe the book includes commentary from

numerous unknown authors spanning many years after Sun Tsus death.

14 There are many translations of The Art of War that place emphasis on various aspects of Sun Tzus writing. One

translation that is approachable to many people is the translation by Thomas Cleary. See, Cleary, Thomas. (1988).

The Art of War Sun Tzu. Boston: Shambhala Press.


7/20

7 | P a g e

In the centuries since Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War many have adopted his principles

and lessons. Some have outright plagiarized his work while others have modified or used it as astarting point for similar work.

15Sun Tzu dispensed with wisdom that applies to many forms of

interaction. His advice on tactics and strategies is seen throughout history yet many of those

employing his ideas probably never heard of him. For instance, the tactical brilliance of

Alexander the Great is legendary. In some battles he was able to lure the opposing army into a

death trap by feigning strength where there was weakness and weakness where there was

strength on his front line. This often led to swift and decisive battle with a devastating outcome

for his unfortunate opponent. This tactic was explained by Sun Tzu centuries earlier and was

designed not only to keep the other party off balance but to gain time to consider other means

of disengaging the enemy. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this sage advice

occurred in modern day boxing when Muhammad Ali employed his now famous rope-a-dope

strategy against George Foreman. Early in the fight Ali effectively lured Foreman into throwing

too many punches that both failed to score points or deliver the much desired knockout blow.

Alis strategy was simple; he leaned against the rope and protected his head during the earlyrounds and, when the time came, Ali surprised the now exhausted Foreman by coming back

with a flurry of body blows and head shots and knocked Foreman out. Ali feigned weakness

where there was strength. Foreman took the bait and fell into Alis trap. Why did Foreman fall

for this tactic and not see the strategy unfold before him? It is most likely because he was used

to the normal strategy of going about boxing, employing tried and tested strategies and

tactics. This one instance was more than a display of tactical genius. It was a game changer or

as Thomas Kuhn (1962) wrote in is seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a

paradigm shift in boxing strategy. The old way of going about normal problem solving

abruptly shifted. The rules of the game needed to be rewritten.

Yet, there still remains some degree of opposition to the study of people like Sun Tzu.

This is, we believe, either ignorance and unenlightened or an ideologically driven rejection that

only serves to narrow the ability of intervention practitioners and conflict scholars to grasp thefuller meaning of conflict interaction.

16Fortunately, both authors have spent years teaching

military officers conflict prevention, peace building, conflict intervention and conflict systems

15An excellent example or plagiarism and reinterpretation can be found in the work of military theorist Niccolo

Machiavellis. His interpretation of war a bit more ruthless. See Machiavelli, Niccolo, (1965) The Art of War

(Revised edition of Ellis Farneworth. New York: De Capo Paperback.

16An example should help clarify this tendency to reject all things military. One of the authors designed a graduate

course in the early 1990s entitled Philosophy and Social Issues of Conflict. The course examined several

philosophical schools of thought along with specific thinkers that impacted social theories of conflict origins and

conflict mitigation/resolution. One section of the course examined the philosophy developed by several military

thinkers that served to provide, among other things, strategic military advantage over adversaries. One such

author was Sun Tzu. What was troubling was the reaction by some of the faculty who, while paying some homage

to academic freedom, applied pressure not to include The Art of War in the class materials. One quoted Einstein

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war which totally missed the point which should have been

if you understand how to prevent war then you have some knowledge on how to construct peace.


8/20

8 | P a g e

analysis.17

What we have learned from our students is that most are naturals at conflict

analysts as it is their job to study both the normal routine means of problem solving and toanticipate the unforeseen nonobvious crisis where systems are overloaded or the means of

engagement are radically altered. So, for the moment lets be practical. The primary reason

military officers study and continually practice military strategies and tactics is for those times

when they will be called upon to use them. These exercises also encompass methods to reduce

exposure to unnecessary risks and this incorporates preventative strategies and tactics. Lets

also be real. There are many other ways to employ that knowledge short of battlefield

engagements to effectively manage conflict interactions. Indeed, the last thing the majority of

officers want to do is take their forces into battle. If politicians and public opinion leaders can

manage the crisis and keep the forces off the battlefield then more power to them.

If we put aside stereotypes and admit that the military is but one of several institutions

that play a role in violent interaction, then if we adopt a systems approach, it is easier to

identify the common links that bind these institutions together. This includes the way peoplethink, the way they create meaning and the language they use. This helps scholars and

practitioners of various form of conflict engagement in grasping a systems approach to large

scale social conflict and to recognize that symbolic interaction acts as a means to interpret

divergent ideas and piece them together into a broader and deeper framework within which to

examine, interpret and engage in conflict interaction.

Into the Modern Era with Bruce Lee

We can learn a great deal from thinkers and practitioners of other forms of conflict

interaction who have either been ignored or never seriously considered as worthy contributors

to the further understanding of conflict origins or conflict interaction. A prime example is the

late Bruce Lee, a master and notable promoter of numerous forms of the martial arts. Lee was

an inventor and experimenter with an entrepreneurial spirit who possessed as knack for

creative thinking. Lee, himself, constantly drew analogies between martial arts and socialinteraction. He didnt see interaction so much from a set of categorical forms but more so as a

fluid evolving exchange. This interpretation of interaction was indeed different from other

martial art philosophies. We speculate that if the late Thomas Kuhn were to have been asked

he would agree that Bruce Lee created a radical paradigm shift in the theoretical backbone of

the martial arts. Lee effectively changed the rules and as such the normal way of viewing the

world, making sense of it and, more importantly, the means by which to engage and solve

problems. At the time of his experimentation with various forms his revolution in thinking

revealed to many others a less ordered system. The way to navigate through the chaos was to

embrace flexibility, ingenuity and adaptation.

17Brian Polkinghorn has been teaching a course in peace building and conflict resolution with Ambassador John

McDonald at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University for seven years. Students in

this graduate program are officers who have been tapped to assume leadership command in their home countries.

As of fall 2012 they have had students from 24 countries. Brian Jarrett has been teaching members of the armed

force

Comment [BP2]: The following is Bria

(See the Pierre Burton interview on Yout

can draw on this and actually use his soc

commentary. Maybe we talk about Kuhn

up front here instead of dumping Kuhn o

reader at the end of the paragraph. Bruc

fact the Kuhn for marital arts.).


9/20

9 | P a g e

Not surprisingly, during his lifetime, the fighting techniques Lee developed defied

categorization within the prevailing taxonomy of styles found at that time within the martialarts. His innovation and improvement on prior art created not just chaos and controversy but

serious rivalries among him and purists of other styles and forms. Perhaps the best thing his

innovations did was to create a sense of dissonance in regard to the way things were ordered.

Dissonance can be good because it can, perhaps uncomfortable, focus thinking on the core

beliefs and values behind actions and ideas. It can be a highly personalized introspective

exercise that can have an impact on evolving social relations.

Lee created dissonance through his deliberately produced paradigm shifts. His unique

and distinct approach can be traced all the way back to the fundamental way he viewed

fighting. He developed a simple yet, in those days, radical philosophy that intently focused on

human means ofinteraction. While this line of thinking sounds simple, bland and obvious it

fundamentally challenged the prevailing hegemony behind the martial arts of his day. The

result was the eventual shift in the way practitioners approached various styles of the martialarts. In fact, Lee came to view styles of martial arts, in and of themselves, as a

counterproductive development that did nothing more than act as an artificial means to

separate people from one another rather than advance the overall art. So too, one might

argue, this may be the case for any form of social interaction (in this case mediation) that

becomes atomized by established habits and traditions that eventually lead to a hegemony

leading to a new style. Examples abound in many fields of human interaction. For instance,

within the realm of clinical psychology there have developed multiple clinical techniques

predicated on specific theoretical concepts and associated models. Indeed, various schools of

thought have grown out of these different stylistic approaches to clinical work and therapy.

Each correctly claims to hold a unique set of ideals that act as the building blocks of the core

concepts that provide a specific focus to interaction. These conceptual lenses also act as a

means to create particular interactive traits.18

Bruce Lee recognized that various forms of the martial arts began with specific

approaches to interaction that subsequently impact style. Yet, when looking at interaction in

its totality he saw that no one style appeared to capture the essence of the totality of

interaction. The defensive martial arts were reactionary by nature. Some of these styles were

carried out not so much to fully interact with the opponent going from defense to offense and

so on but, as he said, to perform for a group of judges sitting nearby. Yet other martial arts,

while also defensive in nature, are also used more so for meditation and exercise. Still other

forms of martial arts rely on a particular set of favored tactics and associated means such as

throwing, punching, kicking or use of specific weapons. Lee came to see these forms of

interaction as being part of the larger repertoire needed to fully interact and engage others.

Lee even went outside the martial arts to study human interaction. He spent countless hours

watching and studying Mohamed Ali's boxing tapes and incorporated some of Alis footwork

and punching techniques into his skill set. Lee also observed the forms and footwork of

18(Place a footnote here a brief discussion on various clinical schools, Rogerian, Freudian, etc.)


10/20

10 | P a g e

champion fencers and how they were able to lunge and attack. He even observed wrestling as

another form of interaction.19

Taking from these forms he developed a more encompassingapproach to interaction. In fact, to accompany his new repertoire of interaction Lee had to

change both his strategic and tactical thinking. In many ways, Lee was creating not just a new

way to interact but along with it a new starting point for a new set of rules.

We have seen how when rules are changed radical shifts can arise in relations among

parties. In a similar line of thinking Napoleon Bonaparte studied the tactics and strategies of

the great ancient generals such as Hannibal, Alexander the Great and Scipio Africanus and

incorporated various tactics and strategies into his own knowledge base and skill set. While

Napoleon knew Alexander was a great tactician and could command at will on the battle field,

it was the ability to mix up the engagement on the field, in essence to interrupt the interaction

of battle, that Napoleon knew created strategic advantage. Indeed, while Napoleon rampaged

around Europe for several years using new tactics and strategies to defeat enemies almost at

will he did not believe as though he had actually own any battle on his own accord. He wassimply plugging in the lessons he learned from the great generals of days gone by. It wasnt

until the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 where Napoleon led a brilliant tactical tour-de-force and

destroyed a much larger army that commanded superior strategic battle field advantage.20

Napoleon was both a tactical and strategic genius and this is the usual explanation for the

decisive, brazen and shocking victory. What is often left unstated is that Napoleon didnt play

by the so called rules of engagement. He changed the rules of engagement on the battle field

and essentially forced other armies into playing his game thus allowing him to use his tactical

and strategic game plan to his advantage.

In short, Bruce Lee developed a form of interaction that borrowed elements from many

martial arts and other forms of interaction to create a new or hybrid or improved but not

wholly unique repertoire of skills and associated rules of interaction. This form of interaction

seems to operate on several ideas. The first is that it took into consideration, as its starting

point, the interaction dynamics one is experiencing at the time and this led to the second that is

to repair back to various tactics and strategies that meet the particular interaction which could

entail a slew of defensive and offensive moves. With practice, this form of interaction can be

repetitive and similar to muscle memory. Yet, Lee goes further. His thinking also left room for

innovation and improvisation. This is where Lee changed the rules on many purists.

If we adopt interaction as Lees key focus relating to how humans engage then Kung Fu

and mediation have a lot more in common than one might think at first blush. In any physical

contest one can observe the physical waxing and waning of energy between the parties, ie., the

expression of yin and yang energy. At one instance one party may become more aggressive

19If Bruce Lee were alive today one might speculate that he would have intently studied hip hop and break

dancing.20

To be fair Napoleon took advantage of terrain and weather conditions that he took note of the night before the

battle.


11/20

11 | P a g e

and in another his opponent who was previously yielding may now press the action forth. This

can go back and forth through many rounds with patterns of initiation and yielding constantlyshifting with the movement of the parties.

Applying the metaphor of this exchange to mediation, we can begin to think of the

verbal and non-verbal exchanges in mediation as asserting (yang) and yielding (yin) patterns

just like one would oberve in a fight. And the pattern of yin-yang energy appears to emerge

and dissipate in complex but predictable patterns. Meeting yang energy with yang energy is

disastrous just as meeting yin energy with yin energy can be. Knowing when to yield or press

forth is the mark of the true expert in martial arts. The metaphor of Chi (or Ki) helps us to

understand that the energy of each fighter is tapped from a larger source and expressed

through each fighter. The fighter themselves are the embodiment of Chi in action as they

struggle back and forth to conquer the other.

III. Applying Insights from the Quantum Universe and Martial Arts to Mediation.(we have to add the application of the physics metaphors into this section they

parallel the martial arts insights so we can connect them here with acitivity in mediaiotn). I

think we might have three subsections in this Part III.)

Because mediation takes place in a physical field there is no reason to assume that

encounters in mediation are not subject to the same principles, forces, and patterns that are

are emerging in the discipline of new physics. At the very least, we have to admit a useful

metaphorical connection. One might even consider if it is possible to create an informed social

physics of mediation. (footnote Emile Durkheim and his failed attempt at a social physics

because of the limitation of the Newtonian paradigm) . Furthermore, the forces, waves,

patterns, complexity emerging in the quantum world appear to resonate with much thinking in

the martial arts world. We believe that practice in mediation can benefit from the application

of theoretical developments in the former.

In many respects mediation, along with the discipline of physics and martial arts. all

attempt to understand and navigate interactions. All tackle complexity with countless

variations in activity and thus there are many tactics and strategies that can be taught and

developed that impact mediation dynamics. For the mediation participants we can teach

effective communication, negotiation strategies and collaborative problem solving skills and for

the third party intervener we can add to that list further training in effective intervention

techniques and process management knowledge, skills and abilities. Now, depending on a

mediator's approach to the interaction she can, and often does, whether consciously or not,

choose to adopt a particular philosophy that frames the way she prefers to interact with

participants. From this she can choose to adopt one set of tactics over another. Likewise, she

can choose not to incorporate a set of tactics and strategies as she sees fit. The question is

why? Why do some mediators choose to adopt a particular set of tactics, skills and strategies?

Is it because it fits their philosophy of interaction? Does it fit their level of experience and skill

Comment [BP3]: Howe about if you t

at this section and then we can chat abo

the idea but am not sure how to pdoceed


12/20

12 | P a g e

set or their personality and character? Does it match their previous experience as a mediator?

Is it required by rules, codes of ethics or some other external mechanism one needs to abide tobe a mediator? These are reasonable and predictable areas of inquiry but less obvious is to ask

do mediators take into consideration the stated process needs of the parties when making

these decisions? Do parties drive the process in any way or are they merely passive passengers

within the process as it moves along driven by the mediatorto given outcome? If all the parties

are enfranchised and engaged is this a more desirable or meaningful way to interact?

A. Mapping the Predictable Dynamics of Interaction (and the Development ofProfessional Habitus)

It is worth noting that for every process there is an outcome and if the process is

modified we can to some degree manipulate the range of potential outcomes. So if the parties

are interacting in a way that suits their needs and this drives the process then we might

hypothesize that this interaction might produce different outcomes than those being driven

primarily by the rules imposed on them by a third party. Some argue that participant impact on

how the process operates can lead to manipulation that pre-exists between the parties. In

other words, parties can reproduce the dynamics that got them into the dispute or conflict in

the first place within the mediation session. This is party driven process manipulation and

something the field has been good about recognizing and perhaps attending too.21

For instance

asymmetric power relationships can be the source of much discord among parties. Early

theorists, such as Burton, when talking about international conflict, chided practitioners by

saying the production of artificial conditions with mediation would not change conditions on

the ground and could, in fact, be unethical. The more pressing query is if we recognize real life

conditions such as power differences exist among parties then how is it we dont recognize that

same with mediators who control the process and hence the outcome? Basic research on

reactivity (cite) impression management (cite) and even the Hawthorne effect (cite) indicates

that the mere presence of a third party is enough to cause participants to modify their

demeanor, conduct and behavior. Taking that into consideration one might open up the

debate on whether or how parties already do manipulate the process. Regardless of how these

debates conclude the primary concept that is present in all of this is interaction.

If the mediator is an agent that can choose among many forms of interactions then it

should be reasonable to assume the same of the parties. If this same ability is afforded to the

parties then the question becomes whose philosophy and rules of interaction will prevail or

how will different philosophies of interaction be moderated? Mediators can, and often do,

provide a time/space oasis (cite Klease) for parties to safely, and with dignity, work through

issues. This is the ideal circumstance to develop but what if the mediator is employing an

approach that doesn't resonate with the parties? What if the mediator is dragging the process

21

However, substituting third party hegemony onto the parties is another form of manipulation that can or likely does impact mediation interaction and outcomes. The prevailing thought is structured interaction (mediator styles aside) if handled

properly, can produce desirable outcomes but who is to say that creating an artificial problem solving environment might not

produce harm when the parties re-enter the conflict zone?


13/20

13 | P a g e

out sometimes over many sessions to the point the parties beg the mediator to stop and

just help them decide on issues? What then? Is the mediator, who is going through the artfulmotions of a particular style actually interfering with the resolution of the dispute as the parties

wish to have it conducted and concluded? What about other styles that impede the process as

the parties wish to have it conducted? What then?

This is precisely where the thinking of Bruce Lee comes into play and where highly

trained and fully seasoned mediators can inform the field of modifications on the art of

intervention and how this impacts the science and study of mediation. Having worked with

individuals who have had more than 40 years experience at the table it was enjoyable to see

how comfortable they were with their means of interacting and how they would quickly

moderate their interaction based on subtle cues from the parties.22

Just as in a dance some

party may wish to lead for a while on an issue and then another may step in and take over. An

inexperienced mediator may see this and want to pull the parties back into the pre-conceived

process at the stage or phase she is in at the time in order to maintain control and keep theinteraction moderated within the given mediation style. Or, the mediator may regulate parties

behavior that disrupts their ability to convey what they mean (i.e. the content and feeling of

their message) using their own language or the mediator may frame issues in a manner that the

parties are uncomfortable with or reject. Experienced mediators that we know modify their

behavior to come more into line with that of the parties rather than the other way around.

Bruce Lee, Napoleon and many mediators think a lot alike. They know the tactics and

strategies from particular styles within their specific art (martial arts, war and mediation) and

choose to incorporate them when called upon and to not let these tools drive the process.

More importantly, a seasoned mediator might let the dynamics at the table and the needs of

22A close friend of one of the authors was a highly respected practitioner with 44 years experience at the

bargaining table. Some of his exploits with (in)famous figures or high profile disputes are near legendary. With so

much time at the table he picked up many ideas, tactics and strategies that are rarely found in textbooks, trainingmaterials or even in the negotiation research. By working with him he taught the art of intervention at the master

level. However, in addition to picking up good ideas and skills used to keep the process moving along, to break

impasse and create and support turning points in the negotiation among other things, he may have also picked up,

as some in my previous department indicated, bad habits which the authors find much more instructive. These

less desirable traits were often branded as bad by faculty in the local university conflict resolution department not

because they impeded the process or led to sub-optimal agreements but because the other faculty saw his

behavior/conduct as violating the tenets of some stylistic model their teleological ideal of what the ideal

mediator shoulddo. Never mind that when working with him, and watching how he would deliberately and quite

often violate some of these sacred tenets, the parties would neither object nor did i t ever lead to impasse but

more often to a mutually agreed upon solution. This story gets worse. It ends with a struggle between the

advancement of knowledge and skill development versus orthodoxy. Under the instruction of one of the authors a

masters student wrote his thesis on the seasoned practitioner friend that had in its title Breaking All the Rules

and the response by some of the faculty, none of whom mediated, was swift, predictable and severe. They

insisted that the thesis not be accepted while others were less strident and insisted that it not be placed in the

library. The sole reason given is that the conduct of the mediator who was highly successful and sought after bydisputants in his arena of practice did not fall into line with the teachings (orthodoxy) of the department.


14/20

14 | P a g e

the parties dictate the utilization of a range of tactics and strategies. Through long practice in

their craft and, in conjunction with the intent study through the scientific investigation in thiscase largely experiential, Lee and Napoleon came to adopt a more flexible and intuitive form of

interaction that relies a good deal on immediate assessment of current conditions. This just in

time response to unfolding dynamics allowed them to select a high probability interaction,

perhaps independent of an alleged style of the behavior. So Bruce Lee may, in the matter of a

few short moments, show us the kicking, punching and throwing of various styles within the

martial arts as well as moves that come various styles of boxing or fencing. His hybrid adaptive

approach is predicated on a skill set that appreciates those tactics and strategies that come

from many more conditioned or disciplined approaches.

The logic here is unique to the more highly specific or specialized forms of interaction.

Some might argue that constraints need to be imposed to maintain an expectation that

consumers of mediation can understand. Basic tenets of mediation are not abandoned with

flexibility. What is being examined here more closely though is the notion that people whosteadfastly adhere to a style may rightfully, in their own mind and morals, be staying within a

given line of conduct which is consistent and therefore known. The question simply becomes

is this the most effective means of assisting parties? If it is not, then flexibility needs to become

one of the basic tenets of mediation. Lee genuinely appears to appreciate this thinking about

flexibility but instead of placing the cognitive emphasis first on the style of interaction he is

placing the focus on the interaction itself and from there choosing the most appropriate skill or

tactic to interact with others. His approach allows for function to be followed by form and not

the other way around. Adherents to more disciplined styles of mediation often put structure

ahead of function and this is where problems can arise.

B. Applying the Chi (or Ki) Metaphor in MediationDiscussion on patterned emergence waxing and waning of energy. Implications for

mediation. Ripness etc. When to mediate? Implications for activity/joint session/caucus inmediation. Etc. Kurt Lewins force field analysis. Directing energy. Notions of leadership in

mediation etc. Mediation juijitsu. Stepping out of the way. Using the energy in the parties to

steer the process. Aikido moves. We can refer a little to theories in Aikido. I have a few ideas

here I will share.

C. Implications for Reflexive PracticeHere we would end on the reflexive practice note. Everybody at the conferences where I have

been presenting love when I introduce this reflexive practice notion. Discuss how it is more

grounded and how it gives rise to greater theory development. The nothing-is-practical-as- a-

good-theory-idea.

Degree of directivness


15/20

15 | P a g e

Instrumentalism moves designed to produce a particular result versus moves opening the

field of problem definition.

We might want to use refer to the Riskin Grid here.

In summary, if we adopt the idea that by first taking interaction as the primary focus of

analysis and examine the dynamics of interaction within mediation, then the mediator can

adapt his mediation knowledge and skills more closely to the parties interaction and needs. In

this regard not only is form (in this case flexibility) driving function (mediation intervention) it

is also driving structure (mediator styles, mediation processes stages) and aligns more so with

the philosophy and perspective of Bruce Lee.

Conclusion

(Need to develop this here. I just put this paragraph in for now.)

We realize that we are adopting an unusual theoretical perspective to frame the exploration of

mediation interaction but in so doing we hope to recast the debate that has arisen over the last

20 years regarding mediation styles and to focus more so on the dynamics of the mediation

process. Our main hypothesis is that mediation styles can often act as rigid prescriptions on

interaction and therefore may not capture the give and take and flexible nature that occurs in a

mediation interaction. We also believe that some mediator styles are cast in professional or

ideological value systems and while this is understandable we know of no theoretical

framework that simply focuses on interaction that emphasizes flexibility. The best way to makethis point is to construct a set of properties or principles of a variety of mediator styles

(behavior frameworks) and test them in live mediation and see what consensus analysis of the

data provides.23

Another is to change the focus of investigation altogether. In this article we

have chosen the latter. In so doing we have gone outside the field of third party intervention

for inspiration to recast the debate and believe that insight from the quantum world that find

resonance in the world of martial arts are instructive for mediators and the development of

mediation theory and practice. (need to rework this significantly).

(A lot of the ideas below can be footnoted or infused under our general organization above.

Even habitus we may leave to a footnote because it is not the main thrust of the article. Your

thoughts?)


16/20

16 | P a g e

Rest of paper

1. What do we mean by third party? How does it differ from second and firstparties?

a. Traditional characteristics of a third partyi. Stated strengths and reasons behind these characteristics

ii. Limitations of these characteristics2. Discussion on Major Mediator Styles BRIAN this is where you can really plug

in some good stuff (and characteristic behaviors that make them distinct)

maybe we can develop a chart to show it in quick form?

a. Philosophical strengths as made by proponents3. Comparing the Art and Science of Mediation to the Branding of Styles - BRIAN

this is also a good place for us to talk. While we dont need to go into detail we

can talk about the industry that has sprung up around various styles.

a. How does adherence to a style unwittingly stymie the art of intervention?b. How does interaction impact the study of mediation (art impacts

science)?

c. How does the adoption of an adaptive and flexible approach tomediation impact the art and science of mediation? How does this type

of action research and experimentation help advance the practice?

4.

Giving it a whirl examining mediator tactics and behaviors (research results)

5. What do we mean by third party? Revisiteda. Redefining the characteristics of the third party

i. Expanding the characteristics (neutral, outsider), skills, rules,behavioral boundaries and structure of third party interaction

6. Impact on researcha. Deductive confirmation of styles measuring mediator behavior using

pre-determined codes or measures

b. Inductive examination of dynamic interaction within mediation let thepatterns, behaviors, skills one observes be used to create a series ofpatterns that lead to models. These can then be compared to the models


17/20

17 | P a g e

associated with mediator styles and the reconciliation process can then

occur.

c. Analytic Induction employing a deductive-inductive loop to studymediator interaction (explore, discover, cluster results, modify back to

explore, discover, cluster results, modify, and so on.)

A Final Caution Fusion and Fission

Keep an open mind, be flexible and try anything once.

Variation and experimentation are found throughout nature. It helps to maintain the

survival of species. While 95% of a species may cluster in a location that is, for the time being,

safe and meets other survival needs, the remaining 5% are off exploring other terrain to their

individual peril. Why some animals in a species explore is not fully understood but one thing is

clear; if the original colony comes under attack or the hospitable location of the colony goesbad, it is these selfless wanderers within the species who serve the vital role of keeping the

species from going extinct. So while some animals may tend to cluster and survive, others will

roam and discover. Those that cluster are undergoing a process of fusion and those that

wander are undergoing a process of fission. Both fusion (coming together) and fission (moving

apart) are necessary in the way people think and behave. The cautionary tale is that if the

practice of mediation moves too quickly toward clustering around certain styles, without the

benefit testing contextually derived ideas (e.g. needs of the parties, dynamics at the table)

then, for better or worse, the tendency will be to caste our lot in fewer options and drive the

field into limited style camps. We see this to some degree today. We see institutes, training

camps and conferences dedicated solely to one style of mediation yet we see no evidence of

mediation being expressed through the larger, broader lens of interaction. The tendency to

narrow our cognitive focus and thus limit interaction serves to limit the utility of the style.

However, in a cynical way, it also serves to distinguish one style from another. It serves tocreate a brand and, from that, a set of adherents. To develop a brand of mediation off a

particular a style and to support it as a dominant theme can, and does, come at the cost of not

realizing the benefits that other "styles" have to offer the parties in their dispute.

Theoretical Framework

Habitus Yes, I think we can develop habitus and expand it as norms like Durheim might have

thought about that. Norms relating to how professional capital is developing in the mediation

field. Instead of social rules we can develop the idea of practice rules and demonstrate that

while sometimes useful they can overly restrict practice and protocol.

Pierre Bourdieu developed the theoretical construct of the habitus which can bedefined as the set of socially learned dispositions, skills and ways of acting that are often taken

for granted, and which are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life.


18/20

18 | P a g e

Habitus applies to many forms of interaction largely at the social group level. The theory states

that teachers, police or construction workers develop a shared habitus with others in their fieldas do some members of ethnic, gender or racial groups. Habitus can be applied to institutional

cultures such as religious communities or educational institutions where the regulation of

interaction tends to develop over a period of time to include not only formal rules but informal

traditions that predispose people to act and behave in a certain manner.

The notion of habitus can also be applied to professional groups such as lawyers, social worker

and physicians wherein professional norms and rules are present alongside a set of traditions

that regulate the conduct of those in the profession as they go about their business. In fact,

other institutions often reinforce these norms through external certification and licensure or by

the establishment of laws. In many regards habitus can be applied to many individuals who

partake in some organized group activity and mediators are no exception.

Even though there is a rather wide variation in the practice of mediation, not just in skill but in

the background of the practitioners, one can often detect the habitus by simply asking

mediators what they do. However, just as in the clinical psychology realm, mediators may

provide a general description of what they do as well as perhaps some specific activities, tactics

for skills that may place them in a sub-set of a mediator. This is one way to begin to assume

first a common thread among mediators and second to begin to appreciate the development of

different styles or schools of thought on the practice of mediation.

Each mediation style has a set of values that underpin the reasoning or justification for the

conduct and activities of the mediator. So, in one sense, the distinction between various

mediation styles may have less to do with what tools are being used but more so with the

reasons behind why certain mediation tools or skills are being chosen to be used in the first

place.

In this sense these rules can establish a subset of the overall mediation habitus that can beexpressed both as a conscious set of rules as well as a set of ideas that may not be fully

articulated but that are nonetheless present and impact the dynamics of the mediation setting.

In some sense then, the mediation habitus is formed as much by formal indoctrination as it is

by the practice of direct sensory interaction.

From Habitus to Hegemony cautionary tale #2

Here is another theoretical underpinning that may lead to unintended consequences.

Mediation styles can evolve into brands by manipulating aspects of the habitus and turning

desired parts of it into hegemony. This hegemony in turn serves to create orthodoxy within

certain fields of mediation that then generates the development of specific theoretical lenses

and associated language and perhaps even into dogma. Then, from this lens we see why

mediators of certain alleged styles do what they do.


19/20

19 | P a g e

We can then also caution that these lens not only impact how interaction is interpreted but

how mediators act and influence the dynamics between the parties which means we doproduce reactivity even if we dont want to admit it. We do, through our mediation styles,

impact the process dynamics and outcomes. We do, through interaction, influence parties.


20/20

20 | P a g e

References

Cropper, William (2001). Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo

to Hawking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company

Heisenberg The Uncertainty Principle

Isaacson, Walter. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Mann, Michael. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Line.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Popper, Karl. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.

Sapp, Jan (1999). What is Natural? Coral Reef Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press.Schroedinger (we may mention)

Znaniecki, Florian. (1934). The Method of Sociology. New York: Rinehart.

Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett

Documents

Transcript of Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting April 2 2013 Draft Polkinghorn Jarrett