Last week, I shared Luskin's thoughts about grievances (the planes that will not land) and the preconditions to forgiveness. Now, the final reveal, how do we become forgiving?

CHANGE THE CHANNEL
​The first step is to change our mindset.  Luskin shares that most people are giving too much time to the grievances rather than focusing on gratitude and beauty. We need to change the channel from the negative things that have happened, to the beauty, nature, love and gratitude in our lives.  Luskin suggests that the more we focus on the gratitude channel the more the hurts will diminish. If we can tune in to the positive channels in life we can help ourselves. 

• gratitude channel: be thankful for the people in our lives / thankful for our health / for the small kindnesses of others (e.g. obeying the road traffic rules, holding a door) / thankful for our breath each morning
• beauty channel: the beauty of nature / if you cannot go to a favourite spot, remember what it is like to be there / watch animals and nature / appreciate music or art
• forgiveness channel: remember a time when you were forgiven or when you were forgiving / think of times you hurt others and needed forgiveness 
• love channel: feel the love from friends or family around you / remember times when you were loved or were loving / call up a friend and tell them you love them

As you experience these positive thoughts or experiences, Luskin suggests you practice holding them in your mind for 10-15 mins at least 3 times a week. Focus on your breathing and immerse yourself in this positive channel.

FORGIVENESS PRACTICE
When you are in the moment and feel the pain from the unresolved grievance, Luskin recommends using Positive Emotion Refocusing Technique (PERT). 

• ​Bring your attention to your stomach - draw in two deep breaths
• on the third breath - bring to mind an image of someone you love or a beautiful place
• continue breathing
• ask yourself as you relax what you can do to address the situation

Changing the Channel and using PERT, can help to calm our minds.  By changing from unenforceable rules to hopes / wishes, we can regain the ability to focus on what we wanted to achieve, rather than how we have been disappointed.

If you are reading this and thinking this sounds too hard, or not rigorous enough, I challenge you to read Luskin's Forgive for Good. I have used Luskin's techniques in my own life and can attest to their value. Am I always forgiving? absolutely not! However, when I have time and can focus, I know that I will feel better if I can use these techniques.  I would hope that everyone I work with in mediation could have access to these techniques.  If you are in mediation consider trying some of these ideas to find peace and to promote your own well-being.  We have power and we need to stop giving it to others. Reclaim your power!

Luskin in Forgive for Good suggests that we need to find a way to land the grievance stories that keep circling in our minds. Not because we should forgive and forget, or because what happened wasn't that bad.  Instead, Luskin asks us to choose well-being, empowerment and freedom.

So if this argument is so clear, why do we resist forgiveness?
One reason can be that we do not know how.  The other can be that we have created a grievance story - a plane that cannot land. We have  created an unenforceable rule (e.g. no-one should lie to me) and then someone we cannot control has broken the rule (e.g. lied to us, betrayed us). Luskin explains that instead of creating unenforceable rules, we can create hopes / wishes.  

What can we do? We can acknowledge that in life we may be disappointed, that we cannot control other people's behaviour.  We can set a positive goal for what we would like to happen, or not happen. By reframing the unenforceable rule as a hope / wish, we refocus on what we do want, and how to obtain that, rather than the disappointment.

Luskin recommends pre-conditions before we embark on forgiveness:

• ​understand what your feelings are about what happened and find a way to explain what happened
• be clear about the actions that wronged you - be specific with details about why the action / inaction was no ok
• share the pain - find two or three people you trust and who care for you to share the story with.  If you cannot share this with friends / family, find a therapist and if this is not possible, then write it down. Importantly do not share your pain with people who do not have your best interests at heart.

Next week, what are the steps we can take to be forgiving?

​Go back to your school playground.  Someone has hurt another child.  An adult is telling one child to say ‘sorry’ and for the other child to ‘forgive’ them. As children we are told to respond reflexively to an apology and offer forgiveness. The challenge is that we are not often taught what forgiveness means or how to do it.  It can seem to mean: 

• I will forget
• I accept / understand what happened
• I will tell you 
• I will reconcile with you

 In reality, forgiveness does not need to lead to any of these outcomes. These are choices.  In reality, forgiveness can mean:

• I want to have control over my feelings
• I want to take back my power
• I want to heal – even if the other person never knows
• I want to be the hero and not the victim

 In his book “Forgive for Good”, Luskin explains that forgiveness is a trainable skill and a choice we can make.  He makes a compelling case for learning and using forgiveness in our lives to enhance our own psychological and physical health.  Over the next few weeks, in this blog and in the podcast, Map the Maze, I will be sharing Dr Luskin’s ideas and considering how they can help parties in conflict.
It is important for people to recognise that Luskin is not proposing a selfless and self-sacrificing forgiveness. His forgiveness is a form of empowerment. It is not about minimising what happened or denying that something happened. It does not mean reconciling with the person who hurt you, they may never know that you have forgiven them. 
 For parties in conflict, there can be a significant amount of unresolved pain and anger over behaviour / events / decisions.  Luskin explains that remaining in anger and pain is a choice. By learning how to forgive, parties can free themselves.  In mediation, this freedom translates into an enhanced ability to negotiate in their own best interests.  

​Next week, why is forgiveness good for us?

If you are in a conflict or negotiation with someone who has a fixed and unyielding time perspective, what are some ways you can try and shift them to a more balanced time perspective? As a mediator, we are always seeking tools to help people to shift their perspective and to be in a position to consider all of the options. Based on the Zimbardo Time Perspective, below are some tools that may be useful to help someone shift appropriately to a more balanced time perspective: 
 

• Awareness is the first tool.  Appreciating that time perspective can influence a party in mediation, or someone in conflict enables you to consider adapting your process or using a tool to support that person.

 

• Mediation Intakes, or pre-meetings are invaluable chances to assess what someone's time perspective may be prior to starting joint mediation or entering into the negotiation. You can check in with some one to see if your observations feel relevant for them.  It can be helpful to manage expectations to have this conversation up front about what might be going on for them and for the other party in mediation, or the other person in the negotiation

 

• Process can be adapted. We can consider are they able to mediate? or negotiate now?  And if so what type of issues can usefully be discussed? It may be that short term and interim issues are all that can be managed and that more time needs to be given to be able to discuss long term issues.

 

• Reframing can assist people to shift perspective. One of the challenges for someone stuck in past negative is that this becomes the frame through which they conduct themselves in the mediation or negotiation. If we can help someone to shift to a more neutral perspective on past events this can help to enable them to focus on the future. If they cannot leave the past we cannot assist them to move into the future.

 

• Metaphor can provide an opportunity for us to use language. We can use words which highlight the future focus of the mediation process or the negotiation and support people to adjust to a more balanced perspective.  For example, “this is the time to draw a line in the sand” – using metaphor can be helpful for people to visualize concepts and ideas

 

• Increase understanding that issues may mean different things to people with different time perspectives.  For example, a dispute in family mediation over whether to set up an education fund for the children may not be a value conflict about the importance of education, but may be a clash between a present hedonist and a future oriented parent. Shifting from a value conflict to appreciating there may be a time perspective difference may enable people to discuss options without judging each other. 

What are some ways you may adapt your approach to other people in conflict or negotiation to take into account time perspective?

As with so many frameworks, there is no correct perspective, however for parties in mediation, it may be an issue to have an excessive focus on any one orientation at the expense of other orientations.  In mediation, you can see how this may work in the room.  
 
We cannot administer the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory on everyone we meet, but we can formulate a hypothesis which may assist us to support the parties in their mediation, or as a party to formulate options and proposals.
 
What time perspective is helpful to a party in mediation/conflict? Boniwell and Zimbardo suggest that a balanced time perspective is optimal for human functioning.
What does this mean?

A balanced time perspective is one where a person is able to shift flexibly between time perspectives depending on the task features, situational considerations and personal resources – as opposed to being biased towards a specific time perspective which is not adaptive, or even maladaptive. 
 
In conflict, I think this means that people need to be able to accept the past has happened, be grounded in the reality of their present and be able to project into their future.
 
We can all think about conflict situations, where people, can appear to be cemented in the past and blame.  However, much you try to shift them to a future focus they insist on returning to the past. 
 
The challenges of this past oriented approach are apparent. Firstly it may stop some one from being able to consider options for the future and to move forward. They may continue to exist in a past negative orientation.  It can easily derail a mediation or negotiation process. In extreme cases, it may antagonise the other party. 

Next week, how can you help someone shift into a balanced time perspective?

The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory originally set out 5, then 6 time orientations -with future negative added by Carelli to take us to 7: 

• Past Positive: a warm and sentimental attitude towards the past.  Can correlate with good self-esteem and a lack of anxiety.  Can assist parties to have a stable sense of self and provide strength in the mediation process.

 

• Past Negative: generally negative and aversive view of the past – which may arise from traumatic events or from a negative reconstruction of past events, or both.  Can lead people to avoid change, being excessively conservative and cautious.  They may seek to sustain the status quo even when not in their best interests. Their behavior in mediation may be influenced by recalling what did not work in the past and in similar circumstances.

 

• Present Hedonist: hedonistic, risk taking and excitement-seeking attitude.  The focus is on current pleasure with high impulsivity and little concern for consequences.  Present Hedonists are not interested in cost-benefit analysis. They may focus on short term gains rather than long term benefits.
  
• Present Fatalist: a fatalistic attitude to the present and future.  A belief that life is predestined and uninfluenced by individual actions. Can be associated with a sense of hopelessness. 

 
For the present oriented they may focus on concrete factors in the immediate, sensory present while minimizing abstract qualities relevant to a decision that exists only in an anticipated future.  It can be difficult for them to delay gratification and they may be easily distracted. They may be uninterested in considering the impact of their decisions today on future consequences.

• Future: general future orientation where behavior is dominated by striving to meet future goals and rewards.  This dimension correlates with conscientiousness, and the consideration of future consequences.

 

• Transcendental Future: an orientation whereby an individual is focused on the life after death – so strongly correlated to religious and spiritual beliefs where this life is preparation for the next life.

 

• Future Negative: a dimension where thinking about the future is correlated with worry and anxiety.  This dimension anticipates negative outcomes. 

For the future oriented the focus will be on reasoning, abstract ideas and a clear concern about consequences. They may be better able to focus on the importance of long-term goals e.g. how well adjusted their children will be following separation. They may be very focused on efficiency and micro-planning.

Next week, what does this mean in conflict and mediation?

And so my Miss Marple series draws to a close. It is with some sadness that I close this series, as it has been massively enjoyable reminding myself of all the stories. Although I am a bigger fan of the movies / serialisations than the books, it is the character of Miss Marple who retains my interest. Why?  Why should an oft described "little old lady" be a character of fascination for decades?

From my perspective, she intrigues us because of her many excellent qualities:

• ​Love of life: Life may be sad, tragic, horrific and yet we must keep on. Regardless of the sadness in her early romantic life and single status in a world which found this to be suspicious, Miss Marple engages with life and people.  She finds delight in her extensive relationships and in the exercise of her intellect. She does not allow the challenges she has faced to limit her enjoyment of living. 
• Intelligence: Whilst it may seem to many of the policemen she encounters that Miss Marple has lived a small life in a quiet village, they are mistaken.  In reality, she has lived a deep life with thought, reflection and observation.  She is able to absorb incredible amounts of information and detail, synthesise them and extract the essential facts. She is a wonder. Rather than feeling that her life has been constrained by her circumstances, she has used this as an opportunity to develop an exceptional understanding of human nature.
  
• Empathy: As a student of human nature,  Miss Marple also displays a deep empathy for other people. On one level she understands people, but exceptionally she feels for them.  It is rare for M. Poirot (a real favourite of mine) to overtly display empathy but Miss Marple, with her gentle manner and bright eyes is a source of comfort and warmth for those around her.
• Justice: Her empathy for others, does not excuse their behaviour. In "A Carribbean Mystery", she is called "Nemesis".  It can seem an unlikely nickname for an old dear with knitting, but look more closely and her eyes are gimlets. She will follow, to her peril, a trial to ensure that justice is done.  
• Courage: Miss Marple is an exceptionally brave woman. As portrayed by Geraldine McEwan her fragility is almost unbearable. When portrayed by Margaret Rutherford it is unnoticeable. Margaret Rutherford has something of the battleship in her portrayal.  It is enjoyable but lessens her courage - who would challenge Ms Rutherford?  As a character though she is often alone working things out, dismissed by the police, disdained by those around, she pursues truth and justice. For me, the restoration of order is one of the most satisfying element of detective fiction, and Miss Marple delivers.

How is any of this relevant to conflict? Ah, that is easy.

• Love of life: in the depths of conflict it can be hard to remember that bad things happen in everyone's life. We need to choose to move forward, we need to choose to live.  The alternative is despair.
• Intelligence: we are gifted with intelligence, yet for many in conflict, the rational brain is offline.  We feel under attack and therefore over rely on our instinct/biases/ fight, flight or freeze instincts. In conflict we need to choose to use our intelligence to the best of our abilities. We need to learn to combine our intelligence with those with whom we are in conflict to find solution.
• Empathy: in mediation, we always say "you don't need to agree with, but you do need to understand the other person's perspective". For those in conflict, being able to experience empathy for the other person can lead to enhanced option generation and a sense that each has experienced pain and loss.
• Justice: people in conflict often say they want a solution that is 'far and reasonable', sadly this view of what is 'fair and reasonable' is often of a highly subjective nature. Learning to see the situation from a more nuanced perspective, understanding that objective criteria can assist with decisions, is a way of embracing justice. Finding a compromise which provides for each party's priority needs can provide a sense of justice.
• Courage: conflict is scary.  For some of the parties I work with, the conflict represents the end of their marriage, their identity, their work, their business. These losses can be devastating.  Parties need to find courage to move forward, to come to the table and to seek solutions. I admire every person who can put aside their fears and concerns and put belief in themselves to find answers. 

There will definitely be more detective series going forward, so watch later in the year for a little Conan Doyle, Allingham, Sayers, Marsh, Sansom, They, Thomas, Buchan...to come.

The Mirror Crack’d has been filmed several times, with Angela Lansbury, Julia McKenzie and Joan Hickson playing Miss Marple.  The story involves both high glamour and high tragedy. The movie star Marina Gregg (played by Elizabeth Taylor, Claire Bloom and Lindsay Duncan) has come to the English countryside trailing stardust. A series of murders occurs and the police believe that Ms Gregg is the intended victim given her notoriety. In due course, Miss Marple uncovers the tragic origins of the murders which can be found in the seemingly insignificant yet deeply consequential actions of the first victim. In the same way, small decisions now can have massive ramifications in future.   
 
At present, many separated and separating parents are struggling to manage their interactions and co-parenting, with the added complexity of Covid-19. On one level there are practical concerns, if there is no school, how will children be cared for during the day? For schools which have gone online, how do parents manage their learning? With lockdowns in place in some countries, where should children live? How can access be managed? How can parents communicate to make arrangements?
 
On a more structural level, some families are re-evaluating everything.  Perhaps one parent has decided that relocation to their home country is the only option, for health or educational reasons. Perhaps one or both parents have lost their jobs and can no longer manage the financial arrangements. Perhaps both parents are seeking to relocate with the children to difference countries. 

 For all of these questions, large and small, the interactions of the separating parents will impact the children long after the separation has occurred, and long after any court orders are put in place. In order to be able to address these questions, parents need to be able to move away from the past and towards the future, even though it is no longer shared. 
 
This requires clarity of purpose and emotional strength.  To allow of a future where conflict has ended and life has transitioned requires each parent to let go of the hurt / blame of the past and to move forward.  This is easier said than done.  Each person will experience letting go in their own way. Sadly for some people this may never happen. In addition, to be able to see reality as opposed to a desired for or feared future requires a positive choice.
 
As someone who has lived with heartache, Miss Marple knows that letting go of the past is a prerequisite for being able to move on with life. She comments of one character that “she couldn’t let go of the past and she could never see the future as it really was, only as she imagined it to be”.  Letting go of the past and the imagined future, enables parents and children to realise their future.

I was reading a NYT article today about how separated parents are coping with the challenges of Covid 19. The author, Hannah Ingber explains that when social distancing in the US started she was worried about how co-parenting would work. Ingber and her ex-partner were in conflict over many parenting decisions.  She is surprised and relieved to find that the petty differences between them fall away as they grapple with how to manage risks for their children. Perhaps in years to come it will become common practice to include pandemic arrangements in mediated agreements between separating parents.  At present this is not the norm.

What is part of normal mediation practice is working to help parents to child-focus and to strengthen and re-imagine a co-parental alliance.  The shared common value of keeping children safe can be a bridge for parents to adapting and changing. Adapting to the new circumstances; and changing established views of the other parent as the 'enemy'. The relative unimportance of that additional extracurricular activity, or whether handover is at 6pm or 7pm, is highlighted when parents must work together for basic health issues. this bridge can lead parents to shift from the negative views and beliefs about the other person as an adult, to a new vision of the other person as a co-parent. In the role of co-parent there is a chance for redemption and trust.

This ability to adapt and change is one Miss Marple has in spades.  In "A Caribbean Mystery" she encounters Jason Rafiel, a rich and highly cantankerous man whom she wisely decides to avoid.  However, through a series of circumstances, it becomes clear that Mr Rafiel has hidden depths of empathy and kindness. They become allies and work to solve the spate of murders at the resort. 

If Miss Marple had held strong to her original beliefs about Mr Rafiel she would have lost the chance for his support and wisdom during her investigation, and his friendship thereafter. Without doubt, Miss Marple is justified in her negative opinion of Mr Rafiel's behaviour.  What becomes apparent though is his intrinsic worth as a person is obscured by some of his behaviours.  For many people in conflict, the behaviours are synonymous with the person.  We observe the behaviours and weigh the worth (or otherwise) of the person themselves.  As Miss Marple knows, people contain 'multitudes' (thank you Walt Whitman). 

Being open to adapt and change, gives Miss Marple the edge in her investigation.  In conflict, being open-minded can enable a shift in mindset from warring enemies to co-parents who can put their children first. Miss Marple knows that the charming host may conceal the murderer, the gentle lady in the next pew may be the poison pen writer.  We need to be just as open to change and adapter as Miss Marple.

In 'Ordeal by Innocence', Miss Marple goes to visit an old friend who is marrying into her employer's family. As she reminds us there is a virtue in being non-partisan.

[SPOILERS AHEAD]

Sadly for Miss Marple's friend, there is no happy ever after for her friend, Gwenda. Despite, losing her friend, Miss Marple does not leave the scene.  Although initially viewed with suspicion by some in the family, she perseveres with her moderate approach i.e. not  fiercely partisan for her murdered friend, but open to hear any information from anyone. 

In any negotiation or conflict, people will have a tribe behind them who supports and advises them. In every tribe there are people who play different roles, hawks, doves and moderates.

The hawks are easy to identify.  They will be the ones advocating for the scorched earth, 'take no prisoners' approach.  They are fiercely partisan.  The challenge is that they can encourage or guilt parties into an adversarial approach. They will caution against concessions and will resist collaboration.  For some parties, it can be challenging to resist the hawks and make an agreement.  Parties can be embarrassed about 'disappointing' their hawks.  They may reject a solution if it means they have to explain it to the hawk. I have seen parties in mediation, hesitate over a solution because they do not want to have to tell the hawks that the war is over and that they settled.

The doves are also easy to identify. They will counsel caution and unilateral disarmament. They will suggest that peace is worth it any price.  They will be heavily focused on the costs of unresolved issues and the difficulties of holding out for a collaborative solution.  They will be trying to spare their favoured party from the pain of ongoing conflict and will preach the benefits of taking what has been offered rather than continuing to work on a solution. For parties, it can be difficult to hold out against the doves.  Their counsel sounds wise, but they are focused on accommodation to avoid conflict / negotiation rather than resolution. 

Finally, the rare moderate. A moderate will acknowledge your pain and your positions, and they will be able to acknowledge that the other side may have pain and positions. They may be able to express the "other side's" thoughts in a manner that you can hear them. They are rare in the real world. If you have a moderate in your tribe, seek them out.  They will be able to help you consider your perspective may not be the only one. They will help you to see all the sides.  Not agree with all the sides, but at least see them.

Miss Marple is a born moderate. Her mind can see multiple sides to any question. She can appreciate that her favoured perspective (that of her murdered friend), is only one perspective in the tangled web of relationships. Using her ability to understand many perspectives is a key to unlocking the identity of the murderer.  In conflict and negotiation, see if you can find your moderate.  If you are supporting a friend in conflict / negotiation, see if you can be the moderate in their tribe.