6.1 Neutrality and Power Distribution
In the US, mediator’s authority becomes legitimate when they claim to be neutral, while in China, mediator’s authority is the product of positional power and the community interest shared by both the mediator and the disputants.Chia, et al (2004) found that the mediation in Chinese community in Singapore emphasize community interest over individual’s self interest.We can identify similar legitimate power in the mediation in mainland China besides the mediator’s positional power.The legitimacy of the mediator’s role in Chinese mediation comes from this shared community and, sometimes national ideology as well as their positions as government officials.According to the notes from the interviews with mediators, in China, there is also a value placed on neutrality in mediation but more importantly and frequently they mention justice, and would use more active, direct and coercive means to implement the law, community norms and practices.This is, in part, because the meaning of mediation differs in the two cultures.Chinese mediators see it as their duty to go beyond the western mediator’s role of being neutral to maintain the harmony of interpersonal relationship among people,to appease the conflict before it even arises.Chinese mediators look at themselves more as a “fixer”than a neutral facilitator.They are willing to disregard the disputants’ values and opinions in order to achieve this harmony.The strategies and tactics used to persuade that are typical of Chinese mediation are rare in American mediation, where neutrality is the overarching role of the mediator.
Wall and Blum (1991) suggest that the Chinese have a different concept of mediation from the westerners, while neutrality is embedded in the word mediation in western cultures.This is a very inspiring point to make.In traditional Chinese verbiage, mediation was often defined as shangfang (上访) — to appeal to the higher authorities for help.Mediation’s contemporary name is “tiaojie”（调解）which means to adjust and to resolve.The former name has a connotation of a hierarchical nature imbedded in its meaning, which may reflect some truth about the social and cultural structure before and during Mao’s time.When the name changed, the nature of the Chinese mediation changed as well.Mediators have lost much of their power imposing decisions on the disputing parties.There are fewer cases that are successfully mediated in urban areas, as evidenced by the 10 cases I recorded.
The ten cases collected for this study were from both urban and rural areas in China.Cohen (1966) and Lubman (1967) have suggested that the two characteristics of Chinese mediation before modernization period still exist.Among the tactics identified, traditional Chinese values are reflected in such tactics as, invoking authority, education, building balance and bonding,minimization.Other traditional values are still highly respected and salient: valuing harmony, respecting the elders, seeking the middle way, and the Confucius definitions of relationships between father and son, husband and wife, superior and inferior.On the other hand, the “political function”that Chinese mediation has served may have been not as salient as before.However, we can still observe that Chinese mediators use languages that feature politics and the law.The Chinese government has been using mediation institute to educate people about policies and regulations, as well as increasing their knowledge of the law.China has been taking measures to ensure the success of economic reform, thus social “stability and unity”have been the priority for the past twenty years.Therefore, the goals for Chinese mediator in their mediation are to ensure this priority, to find and to appease the conflict when and even before it arises.With these goals on their mind, and because of the functions of Chinese mediation, the Chinese mediators will use all kinds of interventionist methods that their western counterpart would avoid using, as it runs counter to the goal of neutrality.These tactics include education, implementing a prior agenda,altercasting, taking side, and bringing in third party.Using the traditional values, norms, regulations and the law mediators are able to educate, to “do persuasion work”and even to criticize.These are what mediators in the United States would call a violation of neutrality, the most important principle in mediation.According to ACR (Association for Conflict Resolution) of the US:(https://www.daowen.com)
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a neutral third-party facilitator helps people discuss difficult issues and negotiate an agreement.Basic steps in the process include gathering information, framing the issues, developing options, negotiating, and formalizing agreements.Parties in mediation create their own solutions and the mediator does not have any decision-making power over the outcome.
Based on this definition, the mediator’s role and their power are limited.First, they are relegated to the status of a neutral third party; second, the mediator has no power to implement any plan or result onto either disputing party (Goldberg, 2003).Contrast this with sthe status of Chinese mediators, who serve as officials in the street committee, the village committee or as the judge in the trial.These positions have given the mediators power and authority which the US mediators lack.Therefore, even though the digression from neutrality may cause rejection and involuntariness from the disputing parties, Chinese mediators would still have their legitimate position in the mediation and be able to lead the mediation to an agreement.The legitimacy comes mostly from their positional power in the kind of political structure that China has, and partly from the community/national ideology shared by every member of the community/nation.In French and Raven (1959)’s terms, the power of Chinese mediator can be based on all five types of power resources: reward,coercive, legitimate, referent and expert depending on the situation.
The legitimacy created by the positional power of Chinese mediators, instead of strict neutrality, is reflected in all the language tactics discussed in this book.The accepted norms and dynamics for how the mediators are supposed to interact with each disputant, and what to expect of the mediators are an interesting phenomena unique to Chinese mediation.It is not an easy task to achieve resolution for both disputants when conflict is the focal point of the discussion.However, seeking help from a higher power authority, who wields more power is a way to entrust one’s conflict into the hands of this third party to resolve in a way that puts the interests of the community first.The rapid and ongoing development and change in Chinese society brings about unique socio-cultural indicators.