In Good Faith

In mediation, the work I’ve been doing for a while now, warring parties come together not to reconcile their competing worldviews but instead to find some narrow path forward—some practical way to co-exist peacefully. 

In most mediation environments, the parties are asked to proceed “in good faith.” This typically means five things: 1) not interrupting; 2) listening to understand, not undercut; 3) actively seeking common ground; 4) focusing as much as possible on the future; and 5) committing to follow through, i.e. scrupulously avoiding empty promises.

In high-conflict situations, modeling any one of these behaviors is hard; practicing all five, for the length of time it takes to arrive at a settlement agreement, might seem like an impossible ask. And yet, at almost every mediation I’ve observed, I see ordinary people—aided only by other ordinary people with a little training—pulling it off.

Here’s why: as difficult as it is to engage constructively, the alternative—failing to find peace—is even harder. By the time people choose to operate in good faith, they’ve often tried all manner of other approaches, and they’ve come to understand: the only way out is through. 

The past week has felt impenetrably dark. I’m looking for hope, so let me ask you this: might this be the moment when we—if not universally then at least at scale—begin to organize ourselves not by party affiliation but by operating principles? To ally with others who are at least acting in good faith? And to separate from those who are clearly not? Could that kind of political re-alignment—both at the grassroots and at the “grasstops” level—actually come to pass?

I don’t know, but I hope so with all my might. In just over a week, we’ve gone from ‘polarized’ to something I can only describe as living in a tinderbox. We won’t find our way out of it without re-thinking our teams. 

Kate