Tools in Network: an E-Net Approach to Sharing Mediation Competences.

The "current" need of mediation

The strong and constant development of mediation practices in the last two decades is generally ascribed to the following two processes:

1. the awareness of a certain crisis "of" - and "in" - the formal systems historically instituted by modern societies to regulate conflicts and ensure social cohesion;

2. the growing appreciation, or "re-discovery", of "alternative" strategies to handle conflicts (or some conflicts) more adequately or efficiently.

According to the first process we may say that the need for mediation is unspecific, i.e. it is determined by the inadequacy or inefficacy of the most conventional or consolidated systems of conflict management (those based on a impositive-adjudicative approach). For instance: most mediation referrals seem to derive from to the complexity of the burocratic machinery, from costly and time-consuming regulations and laws, as well as from the loss of faith in them. Mediation, together with other forms of consensual strategies, is therefore an unspecific alternative to: a) the current malfunctioning of formal-institutional systems, or b) the current inability of the formal-institutional systems to provide satisfactory responses to the ever changing structure of contemporary society.

On the contrary, the second process points out a rather specific need for mediation that emerges where mediation is considered or "re-discovered" as a privileged strategy for the constructive management of conflicts (or of some conflicts) and for the consolidation of social bonds, also irrespective to the degree of efficacy or efficiency of formal and institutional systems. From this different point of view, mediation appears to be a specific alternative to the authoritative-adjudicative approach, because it is able to provide more adequate responses to the complexity of some features of the so-called "post-modern" society (for details on the relationship between mediation and post-modernism see Maria Antonietta Foddai, Mediazione: oltre l'antico e il moderno).

In short: in the first case mediation is a sort of "alternative makeshift solution" (to which one can resort because of the "collapse" of the institutional approach); in the second case it becomes a sort of "privileged alternative solution" (i.e. a better strategy than the formal-institutional approach or any other approach). Of course this synthesis aims at grossly identifying (for the mere purpose of expository clarity) two extreme positions rather than simply reducing the need for mediation to a sharp opposition of the two positions. Between these two extremes there is in fact room for a wide range of intermediate positions and solutions.

The above preliminary remarks pave the way for a better understanding of the reasons why the flexibility and richness of mediation strategies make them today widespread in a large number of social contexts.