Everyday Disputes and Mediation in the United States: A Reply to Professor Felstiner

Abstract

In a recent article in these pages Professor W.L.F. Felstiner (1974) made a substantial contribution to the literature on dispute processing by analyzing the role of avoidance as a means of ending disputes, and by correlating the ubiquity of this technique with differing forms of societal organization. In brief, his insight—richly developed in the article—is that the tendency to walk away from contentious situations is greater in “technologically complex, rich societies” than in “technologically simple, poor societies.” This is because the organization of richer societies minimizes the importance and the intertwining (multiplexity) of family and other group ties and maximizes social, occupational and geographic mobility. In contrast, citizens of poorer societies are bound closely to the individuals in their communities and thus have a greater need and capacity for resolving—rather than walking away from—disputes with those individuals.

Violence, racial harassment and council tenants: Reflections on the limits of the disputing process

“…'In almost every case we interviewed, once the conduct of the 'claim' was handed over to the police or to the council legal department, the victim felt abandoned, and finally disillusioned. In the words of Danzig et al (1975) the lawyers succeeded in 'removing the dispute from its natural context'. 'In the minority of cases in which prosecution was proposed, the police seem to have presented the case badly to the Crown Prosecution Service, mislaying statements and other evidence, then blaming the Crown Prosecution Service for failing to achieve any success.…”

Assessing Listening Behaviors of Mediators in Low and High Coorientational Accuracy Settings

“…Intervention styles of mediators have been investigated, but such studies primarily assess the mediator's different approaches to preparing for mediation (Chandler, 1985;Danzig & Lowy, 1975;Donohue, Allen, & Burrell, 1988;Gibson, 1989;Kolb, 1983;Mayer, 1987;Neumann, 1990;Rogers, 1987). Maxwell (1992) argues that no attempt is being made to state anything definitive about the connection between Maxwell (1992) also states that:…”

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE THROUGH INTERSTITIAL EMERGENCE: The Growth of Alternative Dispute Resolution in U.S. Law, 1970-2000

“…While the community interveners worked in the neighborhoods, the community mediation frame (also referred to as the "neighborhood justice model") took shape in a series of articles by anthropologists and law professors. The central ideas in these articles focused on the possibility of transplanting non-Western community "moots" to urban U.S. settings as a means to handle minor disputes (Danzig 1974;Danzig and Lowy 1975;Felstiner 1975;Fisher 1975). Anthropologists had studied indigenous moots in which small groups of community members gathered to facilitate discussion among disputants, to provide therapy via group discussion between victims and offenders, and to reintegrate the principals back into the local community (Lowy 1973).…”