Calling for a Reckoning

This post may not apply to you, but consider it a warning:

It doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are.

It doesn’t matter how intentional you are.

It doesn’t matter if, after saying what you said, you respond to another person by saying “Well, you have to understand, that wasn’t what I meant.”

It doesn’t matter if the room and audience you said it in front of, applauded when they heard it because it resonated with them.

It doesn’t matter how much you think you were really talking about something else.

When you publicly recommend a reckoning for transgressions that have been long publicly litigated and litigated to a conclusion that merely “is” (rather than a conclusion that may be considered “just” by any modern conception of resolution), then you might as well bring in the heavy equipment.

Because, invariably, you are going to have to oversee the digging of multiple graves.

Be careful when demanding a reckoning to get to justice.

Exchanging the Truth for a Lie

The second most compelling question after “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is “What is truth?

When we fail to do the hard work of renewing our behavior and changing our mindsets, we exchange the pursuit of the truth for the lie of preserving the status quo.

Science cannot tell us what truth is. Only what the facts of the matter are.

Art cannot tell us what truth is. Only create representations of the shadows of truth.

Philosophy cannot tell us what truth is. Only make claims about the pursuit of the truth.

Marketing cannot tell us what truth is. Only package the search for it and communicate the process of getting there.

Religion cannot tell us what truth is. Only provide us with a set of rules, regulations and structures to pursue the truth, if we choose.

Governments cannot tell us what truth is. Only render consequences when violations of truth become so onerous that they cannot be ignored and call such consequences justice.

People cannot tell us what truth is. Only tell the stories of their pursuits—and successes and failures.

So: What is truth?

If renewing your mind to get to the answer to this cornerstone question of existence were easy, then everyone would do it.

And conflicts—mismatches in frames, perspectives, and behaviors—would disappear just as quickly.

Do the hard work first of pursuing the answer, and the Truth will find you.

What We Can Have

There can be truth and justice and civility in a civil society.

For if we sacrifice any of the three—in service of achieving any one of the others—the pillars of civil society fall apart.

And then, we become the very monsters of oppression we are fighting to destroy.

The Moral Arc of the Universe

The moral arc of the universe bends towards justice.

And justice, supposedly, is blind.

Or so they say.

But people, with their prejudices, conflicts, disagreements, and dissensions, have trouble arcing towards blindness.

The issue with justice is not the fact of justice, that which is applied through the creation of laws, the codification of morals, and through genuine appeals to theology and philosophy.

The other issue with justice is that it’s application is often confused with something else.

Vengeance.

Because stories get closer to the truth of this than facts do, a character in a movie once stated that, “Karma is justice without the satisfaction. I don’t believe in justice.”

Many people and groups scream loudly for justice.

There are signs, placards, and bumper stickers with the phrase, “no justice, no peace” emblazoned upon them, but what they are really demanding is karmic retribution, not an arc of the universe bending toward justice.

Or peace.

Retribution, vengeance, revenge; wrongs righted with immediacy and swift, unambivalent consequences. Punishment, meted out by at the highest order, in the fastest way, with as few innocent people harmed as possible.

We are undergoing a global revolution where groups, cultures and individuals are confusing the potential, long desired outcomes of the revolution with their own personal desires for karmic retribution.

The narrative arc of the current revolution goes something like this:

Never before in the history of world is there access to more information, more money and more power to change the world in that ways that we would like it to be, rather than the ways that it has always been.

No longer will disparate groups and individuals wander the world, merely satisfied with the outcomes formerly guaranteed to them by “betters” or “others” in the social order.

We want more.

And if we don’t receive the more that we are guaranteed, then we will either move those in power to get it.

Of we will call for justice (and crank up the social pressure to conform) until we get the material outcomes we seek.

This narrative underlies current calls for justice, with the immediacy of the narrative following ever newly discovered injustices, as wave after wave of more access, more mobility and more individualized power seems to wash over the societies and cultures we inhabit.

But so what, right?

Well, conflicts occur when narratives differ, when perceptions of justice don’t match and when unanticipated disruptions happen. Conflicts happen when narratives of actual injustices (and perceived narratives of injustice) rub up against each other.

And when the only resolutions come in the form of power transfers and shifts, conflicts escalate quickly to violence.

One need only look at incidents around the United States (and the world) last year to see the evidence of this. With that being said, there are some critical questions to ask–and answer:

  • What are we to do?
  • What is the balance between justice, vengeance, and the more revolution that we are experiencing worldwide?
  • What is the most unambiguous way for all people (even those who have chosen not to participate due to inability, lack of ability or lack of interest) to benefit from the new largesse that technology promises to provide?
  • What are societies and cultures to do, even as the center disintegrates and the power holders in culture, media, and journalism and on and on, lose out in the shifting narratives of our times? Who gets to choose?
  • Who gets to make the world?

We don’t know the answers to any of these questions.

But far more energy should be spent on discussing and answering the questions, than on advancing a narrative that cries out for justice disguised as vengeance, while at the same time proclaiming that fairness and equitable treatment are the true goals.

On this day, let us commit to knowing the difference between justice and vengeance and to asking—and answering—the hard questions of the narratives that underlie our motive, our assumptions, and the ongoing global arc towards something that might eventually look like justice.

[Strategy] Pursuing Justice

In a conflict, human responses range along a continuum, lurching through the stages of grief. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” described the five stages of grief as denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Justice is  Blind

When parties are hurt in a conflict, many seek revenge. That hot, fiery desire to inflict the same level of pain on the offending party, which they have inflicted upon us.

The processes of conflict resolution, mediation, negotiation and even litigation, seek to insert a third-party (sometimes another person, sometimes an organization) between each party. And, at the furthest end, transformative processes (and psychotherapy processes) seek to insert a third-party between each party and themselves.

Hurt parties seek justice through formalized litigation processes—but if we are being honest in this space (and we often tell workshop groups that we deal in truth), we must acknowledge that wounded parties seek a reckoning, with the outcome in their favor.

With this acknowledgement and understanding, it is important to note that revenge comes to the forefront and begins to poison even the most neutral of processes. Revenge disturbs parties in conflict, because culturally, we have been taught to abdicate our tribal rights to revenge to the state (in the form of mediation, litigation, etc.) in exchange for material safety and security.

True justice, Biblical justice, however, is really about forgiveness. Forgiving the other person requires each party to do three things; all of which can seem impossible when parties are in the throes of the five stages of grief:

  • Recognize and acknowledge anger, but do not become swept up by the emotional flooding that results. The corollary to this is to avoid the emotional toxicity of the other party’s anger in a conflict.
  • Control and manage the tongue. More and more research proves the psychological power of human storytelling. Gossip, rumors, innuendos, tales, and other forms of telling the conflict story repeatedly, add to the emotional and psychological detritus that piles up around the conflict, further confusing the pursuit of justice as forgiveness.
  • Realize that forgiveness is about justice for you as a party in conflict, not a panacea for the other person. There’s a lot of confusion in beliefs around justice and forgiveness. Consequences to actions can be legal, moral, ethical, and behavioral and come in other ways. But when we forgive as an act of justice, we release the agency of committing those acts to others in authority, rather than taking the authority (and it’s consequences), on ourselves.

Parties who have been wounded in conflict have a right to be angry, to be afraid, and a right to disengage for their own psychological and emotional protection. They do not have a right to inflict more pain, or to escalate the conflict under the pretext of pursuing justice, when in reality they seek revenge.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: hsconsultingandtraining@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Opinion] Justice Is Blind

Justice is blind.

Justice is  Blind

Or so it is said in Western culture.

The issue with justice is not the fact of justice, which is applied through law, morals, appeals to theology and philosophy. The issue with justice is that the narratives around it are often confused with several other things.

Desire for vengeance. Dissatisfaction with outcomes. Disappointment at a lack of desired consequences.

Crime victim families walk before cameras and state: “We came here for justice and justice was done.” Or, “We came here for justice, but there was no justice today.”

A character in a movie once stated that, “Karma is justice without the satisfaction. I don’t believe in justice.” Another character infamously intoned in another film “For justice, we will go to Don Corleone!” We should remember that Lady Justice carries both scales–and a sword.

Many people scream loudly for a narrative that includes and envelops justice. They even make signs and placards with the phrase, “no justice, no peace” emblazoned upon them, but what they are really seeking is karmic retribution.

Retribution, vengeance, revenge; wrongs righted with immediacy and swift, unambivalent consequences. Punishment, meted out by at the highest order, in the fastest way, with as few innocent people harmed as possible.

There is a revolution underway in both the Western world and at a larger, global level.  Societies, groups, cultures and even individuals are confusing the results of that revolution with their own desires for karmic retribution. The karmic retribution narrative begins something like this:

“Never before in the history of world, do we (typically meaning “I” or “my in-group”) have access to more information, more money and more power to transform the world in ways reflecting how we would like it to be, rather than the frustrating, unjust ways that it has always been. No longer will we (typically meaning “I” or “my in-group”) wander the world, merely satisfied with outcomes formerly guaranteed to us by ‘people in power.’ We want more. And if we don’t receive the more we are guaranteed, then we will either move on those in power to get it. Or we will call for justice until we get the material outcomes we seek.”

This narrative underlies many current calls for justice, with the immediacy of the narrative being employed, following ever newly discovered injustices, as wave after wave of more access, more mobility and more individualized power seems to wash over the societies and cultures we inhabit.

But so what, right? Under a Rawlian (or even a Lockean) philosophical world view, why shouldn’t narratives be reframed and cries for justice recried?

Well, conflicts occur when narratives differ, when perceptions of justice don’t match and whenever disruptions happen. Conflicts happen when narratives of injustices (and perceived narratives of injustice) rub up against each other.

And when the only resolutions come in the form of power transfers and shifts, conflicts escalate quickly to violence. And, while this is nothing new (see Don Corleone) one need only look at incidents around the United States (and the world) last year to see the evidence of the conflicts and how quickly and irrevocably they can escalate.

What are we to do?

What is the balance between justice, vengeance, and the more revolution that we are experiencing worldwide?

What is the most unambiguous way for all people (even those who have chosen not to participate due to inability, lack of ability or lact of interest) to benefit from the new largesse that our recent scientific/moral/ethical/legal revolutions promise to provide?

What are societies and cultures to do, even as the center disintegrates and the power holders in culture, media, journalism and on and on, lose out in the shifting narratives of our times?

Who gets to choose?

Who gets to make the world?

We don’t know the answers to any of these questions.

But far more energy should be spent on discussing and solving those questions and advancing the narrative of peace. Much less energy should be spent on advancing narratives that cry out for karmic vengeance, too often framed in the language of justice, while always proclaiming that fairness and equitable treatment are the ultimate goals.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

We Built This

There’s been a trend that has advanced as our electronic tools have outstripped our good sense, our common decency and our impulse control.

The_Conflict_In_Your_Facebook_Feed

The trend can be heard in phrases such as “my Twitter feed blew up” or “Facebook melted down.”

When the popular media narrative drives emotional responses to hot button issues, surrounding topics such justice, identity, legal decisions or social depredations to push up ratings and gather attention, the population in the United States now has the tools and know how, to take to Twitter and Facebook and express displeasure, disgust or even to “poke the bear.”

The social contract is breaking down, not because people have the tools to express opinions from the peanut gallery, but because every peanut in the gallery has access to the tools in the first place.

But, we in the field of ADR shouldn’t get mad at the Internet or social media. After all, we either actively or passively, participated in building the media that we have right now.

We shouldn’t throw up our hands in disgust and walk away, tune out, turn off and drop off the “map.” We also probably shouldn’t engage, foment and otherwise stir the pot more, with anything but affirmations of peace and solutions to complicated issues.

We have taken the words of the Declaration of Independence, and the admonitions and arguments of dead 18th, 19th and 20th century white male philosophers to heart, but unfortunately, we have taken them to heart—and to task—using tools and social spaces that weren’t really designed for nuanced observation, conversation and peacebuilding.

The popular narrative is exactly that—a story—and we as individuals are under no obligation to spread the story, comment on the story, or even to believe the story.

We are under obligation, as peacemakers, to point out alternatives to the dominate narrative, no matter from whom—the majority or the minority—it may spring, and offer a path toward the Truth.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: hsconsultingandtraining@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

Small “J” vs. Big “J”

Forgiveness is difficult because many people have a deep misunderstanding of what forgiveness is and is not.

Half-Measures-Didnt-Get-You-Into-Conflict-Half-Measures-Wont-Get-You-Out-Of-it

Half-Measures-Didnt-Get-You-Into-Conflict-Half-Measures-Wont-Get-You-Out-Of-it

  • Forgiveness gives fairness a chance. And while we don’t know about a lot, including what’s fair and what’s not, we know that the feeling that fairness has a chance to occur can only come about through the act of forgiveness.
  • Forgiveness is an active act we engage in, rather than a passive event that occurs to us from the ether without our acquiescence or knowledge.
  • Forgiveness does not mean that we surrender our right to justice. And justice comes from our moral core.

The act of forgiveness and the process of getting there, is often mixed up with small “j” judgment—focused on determining who’s right and who’s wrong—which often then turns into capital “J” judgment—where we determine where another’s soul might or might not be going.

The Christian conciliator often gets the idea of judgment mixed up with the gut feelings of discernment.

Discernment comes from the Holy Spirit and the move of the spirit in a person. Confirmed through prayer, the Christian conciliator can get closer toward guiding others through the forgiveness process, and past the capital “J” judgment that blocks true understanding.

[Check out The Art of Forgiving by Lewis B. Smedes for more on this.]

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: hsconsultingandtraining@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Guest Blogger] Sheila Sproule: How I Became Inspired

What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.”― Jane Goodall
The Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT) guest blogger this week is Sheila M. Sproule.
A graduate of Fordham University School of Law, Sheila serves in multiple capacities in the pursuit of peace in New York State.
Most prominently, she is the current President of the Association for Conflict Resolution-Greater New York chapter (http://www.acrgny.org/). As the president, she works to outreach and advocate for the interests of professional mediators, academics involved in the field and fellow legal practitioners of ADR in the greater New York area. From the ACR-GNY website:
“The Association for Conflict Resolution Greater New York Chapter, Inc. (ACR-GNY) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting and strengthening alternative dispute and conflict resolution, fostering the use of dialogue and contributing to professional development of the ADR field.”
In her professional life, Sheila works in the NYS Office of ADR and Court Improvement Programs as a Management Analyst. She is a tireless advocate of ADR processes and the ADR field overall and approaches her work with excitement, energy and an enthusiasm that is infectious and inspiring.
We here at Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT) are proud to feature her writing here and heartily recommend joining ACR-GNY if you are a professional in the field of mediation anywhere in the Greater New York area.
—————————————————————————————————————————
I became inspired to mediate in law school when I joined a mediation clinic out of curiosity.
YinYang and ACR-GNY Logo
It was a new concept to me — the idea that people could go to a third party neutral to assist them in resolving disputes — which is exactly the role I played when a group of us went in to small claims court each week to mediate cases.
It was eye-opening to realize that people were often motivated to sue each other because they wanted a chance to confront the person they felt wronged or disrespected by, and often never even spoke with until that day for the first time communicate since the incident. I found that money was not the only factor in every dispute mediated; but, rather everyone wanted to be heard.
As a former Adjunct in the same clinic years later, I learned how important it was for people to have their feelings validated by a neutral third person; someone that could reframe their situation to the other party in ways the other party could hear them.
These are just some of the values embedded in the dispute resolution field. As current President of ACR-GNY, it is my role to ensure that the public is made aware of all the options available to them when they are in conflict — from the early stages to the late stages. 
Dispute resolution practices take many different forms, and our membership embodies all the possible options out there — mediation, arbitration, coaching, settlement conferencing, and facilitation.
Please visit our website and learn more: www.acrgny.org.
———————————————————————————————————————
-Peace Be With You All-
Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Mediator/Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Follow the Human-Services-Consulting-and-Trainingpage on Facebook
Follow our Principle Consultant, Jesan Sorrells, on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
Connect with HSCT on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/
Email HSCT questions or comments at: hsconsultingandtraining@gmail.com
Check out HSCT’s NEW website: http://www.hsconsultingandtraining.com