I've previously
written about talking or peace circles while providing a "primer" on ADR terms, theories and concepts. Talking circles originate in indigenous cultures, and are closely related to theories and techniques seen in restorative justice generally. Such restorative justice (a.k.a. reparative, reconciliation or integrative justice) techniques have been used with considerable success to bring healing in the face of both wide-spread cultural conflicts, and to parties affected by property damage crimes. See ADR
Terms, Theories and Concepts - A Quick Primer.
Jack B. Hamlin and Justine Darling describe a 2010 experiment using talking circles to address a socially and emotionally complex community issue: homelessness in Ocean Beach, California. See ACR Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, Use of Peach circles in Large-Scale Community Conflict: A Case Study. The study provides great learning potential.
As Hamlin & Darling describe the context, the Ocean Beach community had historically had and welcomed homeless. But in recent years area merchants became concerned with what they viewed as aggressive pan-handling by able bodied homeless. One merchant began selling a sticker playing on the "don't feed the bears" tag line, with "Don't feed our bums," and the San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless issued a sticker with an image of a homeless person shaking hands with an O.B. resident.
While some people viewed the dispute humorously, most community members recognized "polarizaion and anger" over the issue. The Ocean Beach interfaith community responded by sponsoring an open forum to discuss issues related to homelessness in Ocean Beach, and they chose to use the peace circle format.
As my colleague Mark Brenman describes Navajo talking circles, "[t]he circle creates an
open setting where each participant will speak and, in turn, will be
heard ... [t]e circle arrangement emphasizes the connectedness of the
participants, equal responsibility for leadership, and ownership of the
solution by all participants in the circle ... [t]he center of the
circle represents the underlying issues that need to be resolved to
attain peace and harmony for the individuals and the community," and
"[t]he passing of the talking piece slows down the process to promote
reflection and focused listening." Brenman, Culturally-Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Native American, First Nation, and Other Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Groups (Version of 5/28/2011) at 58.
The O.B. experiment followed these principles and methods generally, except without the specific "talking device," and with some organizing refinements. Notably, they posted the rules of the forum, so participants would be aware of them in advance of the forum, along with a list of issues to be discussed. Facilitators were provided by the San Diego Restorative Justice Mediation Program, and members of the interfaith community trained in these principles before hand. The rules, which were circulated again and signed at the forum, generally included agreement that: the
Facilitators would be in control, parties would speak one at a time,
respectfully and truthfully, and they would listen to each other.
The day was also broken into two sessions. The first round questions were designed to help the participants "find commonality without controversy:"
- name 2 things you love about O.B.
- name 2 things that drew you to O.B.
- name 2 negative things about O.B.
- describe the kind of community you'd like O.B. to be.
After the first session, the facilitators wrote down responses and posted them on large paper around the round. During this time, participants were on break and tended to stay together and talk more informally with each other.
The second round of questions "were more focused and required collaboration and integration of the participants' responses from round one:"
- what stands in the way of making O.B. the kind of community you desire?
- what resources do we need to make O.B. the kind of community you desire?
- how do we address the threat to peace in our community this summer and beyond?
Hamlin & Darling code and sort the O.B. participants' responses, which are interesting. However, I found the questions even more interesting because they have a universal element, and could be used with only minor variation in relation to many community-wide disputes. In these situations, your aim as a facilitator is to help the parties see overlook commonalities, and promote their collaboration in brainstorming issues, resources, and solutions. These open ended questions are well-developed to meet those goals.
Afterwards, a follow up report was issued and additional forums planned. A second forum, held about six weeks later, which focused on several action items identified in the first forum, such as bathroom facilities and a drop-in emergency shelter. Rules and issues were again posted in advanced, and this forum presumably went well also. A third forum was held several months later, but this time the rules were not posted in advance this time and it did not go so well.
From these experiences, Hamlin & Darling draw the conclusion that "too much emphasis cannot be placed on the need for preparation of the forums," or the need for care in organizing the process. For instance, use of the interfaith community as convener served as a model of collaboration. Disseminating and having parties sign the rules promoted "buy in" and helped the facilitators exercise better control over the process, both. The use of broad, value-free, and open-ended questions on the agenda "diffuse[d] the community acrimony" and "[got] the attendees talking civilly with each other" about the dispute. Summarizing ideas and expressions generated is important to provide feed back and additional direction to the participants, for future discussion and work and to "create credibility in the process."
Ultimately, the Ocean Beach peace circle highlighted for the authors he principle that "as long as we're are talking, we are not fighting." However, they note that a number of participants still grumbled that "there was a lot of talking" and "nothing got done." A next challenge might be how to better demonstrate the utility and accomplishment to such doubting Thomas participants.
If
you are interested in mediation, facilitation or communication coaching services, please contact Pilar
Vaile, P.C. at (505)
247-0802 or info@pilarvailepc.com.
