If the definition of
MEDIATION
is “a process during which an impartial, neutral person,
the mediator,
facilitates communication between the
parties
in a dispute to assist reconciliation,
settlement, or understanding among them,” then a mediator should be an expert in terms of
communication (oral, written, implied and body language) to act as a bridge of communication
for the disputants.
Nevert
heless,
when the mediator does not speak, read or write the language of
the disputants, does not understand the nonverbal communication and culture of the disputants,
does not understand the sensitivities of the participants in the mediation process, then
mediation
sometimes becomes a useless tool. The process would not bring about any fruitful
would result in unresolved disputes,
and often could leave the non
-
English speaking disputants
with an unsatisfactory and bitter experience.
Mediation is a
purposeful technique of communication to bridge the communication gaps. But
when a mediator cannot communicate directly to disputants or look straight into the disputants’
eyes and create trust, confidence, and good rapport,
s/
he would instead have to rel
y totally an on
outside interpreter. The mediator cannot facilitate communication or know whether the
interpreter’s translations truly reflect what the disputants mean if
s/
he does not speak the target
language. A mediator cannot qualify the interpreter if
s/
he cannot understand a word of
disputants’ native tongue. A mediator who uses an
interpreter may
not be able to know whether
the interpreter is biased against one party and sympathetic toward another. When a mediator does
not acquire the principles and
techniques of interpretation and translation,
s/
he cannot be
sure
that interpreters truthfully and accurately perform their duty.
“
Without communication, there is no negotiation.... When the parties speak the different
languages the chance for misinterpretat
ion is compounded
.”
No comments:
Post a Comment