Mediator merits: melting malignant malice

When suffering is unmanageable, blame is an effective group solution. Systemic interventions soften certainty, making room for change.

‘He never…she always…they’re to blame…’ - it’s necessary to explore the patterns of conflict before attempting to intervene. However, moving beyond blame involves introducing difference. Too much challenge and you’ve lost your audience, too little and you’re now complicit in an unhelpful pattern.

When hearing stories of blame, I draw on Arthur Frank’s encouragement to consider ‘what’s at stake’ for the storyteller - in our case the storyteller who blames.

This encouragement rests on the precondition of acknowledging human vulnerability - ‘what’s at stake’ is not intended to orient us towards dishonour, but the reasonableness of human behaviours as attempts to cope with a particular history and context.

As our friends in mediation are well aware, eliciting what’s at stake for all warring parties - creating the conditions for many stories to be heard - can produce a preferred outcome for all sides.

Hardline positions can soften when the reasonableness of blame is explored.