Monday, September 10, 2012
Week 4 Post 1
-->
It makes total sense to me that a communication
major would make a good mediator for many reasons. First of all, we are
learning how to resolve conflicts in alternate ways, without resorting to
physical or verbal abuse. We also are learning how to listen to others and then
communicate the correct way, being able to get our point across while trying to
still be respectful. I think that sometimes people forget how important our
words are and how powerful they can be when used in the right way, or how detrimental
it can be when they are not. Lawyers wouldn’t make as effective of mediators
because they are totally one-sided, the side of their client and who is paying
them. You wouldn’t make a very good lawyer if they flip-flopped and went
against their client in the courtroom. And psychotherapists would have a harder
time as well because they would try and solve it, instead of letting the
disputing pair come to their own agreement. So, overall, I think that we as
communication studies majors are at an advantage with the task of mediation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Happygolucky,
ReplyDeleteI can agree with everything that you said. Reading your post, was like reading my own, it was very similar. I had to do a project last semester in one of my classes where we all where in person doing a discussion for what my group chose which was, campus safety. My job was to just help start the conversations and/or close them, essentially I was the mediator. I think when there is heated topics especially a mediator should be present, because I think it will allow people to pause and see the other side of the issue.
I don’t think lawyers would make a good mediator, because I feel they would get defensive right off the back and it would be hard for them to see other people’s perspective. However, a Lawyer has to research its case a lot and be ready for rebuttals so maybe it would be able to understand both sides.
Hello, Happygolucky!
ReplyDeleteI agree that lawyers would make awful mediators, because they are very biased and loyal to whoever is paying them for their services. They are trained to "win" a case, which implies a competitive nature and is the opposite of what a mediator is trying to accomplish. I think the same thing can also be applied to psychotherapists. A mediator is supposed to spend equal time with, and give equal attention to, both parties. But, if one party is paying for more sessions than the other, then they will get more time and attention, and this may cause the therapist to have a greater connection with that person resulting in a bias. I agree that a psychotherapist would also try to solve the parties' issues and tell them what to do to resolve them, rather than letting the parties come to a mutual decision on their own.