No script for the journey

Feb 07, 2011

I recently started reading The spirit and art of conflict transformation: Creating a culture of justpeace by Thomas Porter. Early in the book he says, “The work of conflict transformation is best described as the art of improvisation. Human interaction cannot be programmed, and there is no script for this journey.” Mentally, I said, “You’ve got that right.”

Now I do work with a “scripted” form of conferencing, but what I’ve learned is that no two pre-conferences or conferences are alike. I cannot predict outcome or how the participants will interact. The few times I’ve tried I was really wrong. In one case, my overconfidence in predicting outcome led to a not so positive experience for the participants.

Yet, I’ve also seen some amazing interactions between victims, offenders and community members. We follow the process and go where the parties need to go. This might mean helping a young man save face after he refused to answer a question by creatively finding another way of asking it. It might also mean being available for meetings at odd times to allow parties the opportunity to come together. It might also call for creativity in finding ways to help a victim communicate with his or her offender when that victim has reservations about meeting face-to-face.

“The art of improvisation” comment reminded me of conversations I’ve had with facilitators that I’ve mentored. Often, facilitators in training who observe while I facilitate a conference will ask why I made certain decisions about what to ask. For example, “Why didn’t you ask about the previous offending behaviour?” or “Why did you ask them about their drug use?” I have to think for a moment. Usually I have asked the questions because they feel natural in the conversation. The questions are respectful, meant to illicit information while showing genuine interest and care. So, I can’t lay out clear ground rules like, “If a then b.” Because restorative justice is a journey without a script, it’s about creating opportunities for people to think about behaviours and their impact, talk with others about this, and together imagine the possibility of change.

I understand the reasons behind the questions. Facilitators do have a responsibility for ensuring physical and emotional safety of those participating in a restorative process. I know things can go wrong if I am not well prepared. This is why the principles and values of restorative justice must permeate the programme and all our interactions with both colleagues and clients.

I’m interested in hearing from others on their experiences in this area. How do you respond to questions like the ones I discuss?

Document Actions

Send this

Filed under: Conference, Limitations, Support, Practice, Correspondent:Lynette Parker, Volunteer

Marlene Hahn says:

Feb 09, 2011 06:43 PM

I agree that asking the questions is almost an art form. The facilitator has to be able to use creativity to guide the process between the victim and offender in ways that will ensure their safety and sense of security, yet keep the lines of communication open -- no matter how painful the process may be. I think that one of the most difficult principles for facilitators to grasp is that their role is to guide the process and keep everyone on course, but not to direct the process toward the goal the facilitor believes ought to occur. Keeping that mind open to reasonable options seems to be the a basic tenet -- and being willing to let the process occur without needing to be the "fixer." I think we need to ask open ended questions without bias, and make sure we do not get sucked into the process by needing and trying to obtain a specific result for our own edification -- at a cost to victims,offenders, other participants and the integrity of the process.

Christa Pierpont says:

Feb 13, 2011 10:37 PM

After several days of thinking about the idea of ‘no script’, I’d like to put out some thoughts about what restorative justice advocates can overstep in our enthusiasm for this paradigm. Conferencing about a harmful incident that usually involves several people really needs the support of several people to best resolve it. The idea of one person walking into the lion’s cage with many peoples’ expectations about outcomes is very bold and a wee bit stacked in favor of disappointing people from the get-go. Conferencing requires team work and pre-conference preparation regarding a structured process. One individual can not overly surprise the participants or ‘read’ all that is going on in the room without a degree of team work. Controlled chaos is OK as long as a defined process in being adhered to with the support of team members input. Team members can include those involved in the conference as well as facilitators. I also believe that the current mind-set of boundless vindictiveness, limp-wristed obedience to ‘let it go’ or cynicism does not create the necessary conditions to understand what conferencing is about. People look so puzzled when you talk to them about restorative practices. RJ is like a foreign language to them. Restorative practices really could benefit from a good ramped up regional PR campaign (starting with the schools) in places that want to put the model into effect. It will require waking people up to a different way of thinking about addressing a difficult situation. When the great social activist Angela Davis was asked about her opinion of restorative justice her eyes twinkled when she said to the audience that restorative justice is not a program—it is how a community decides how it is going to show up for one another. So in principle she is a supporter and she charges a community to decide how they are going to show up for one another. This difference is why I believe the RJ City model is going to go a long way to making conferencing less unwieldy at times.

lparker says:

Feb 13, 2011 11:09 PM

Christa, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with the point about team work. As facilitators, we have to permit the participants the opportunity to decide it's time for a break or even that the event is more from them. In the type of case you are talking about, with a serious event and several people, it is important to have more than one facilitator. Also, preconference is very important. The process is structured but it is not cookie cutter. This is the point I was trying to get to in my article. Because each case is different and each participant has different needs, it's important to approach each case with that in mind. For example, we often talk about conferencing in terms of one pre-conference meeting and then a conference. I've had cases where this wasn't feasible. I've met with parties two and three times in pre-conference sessions as we work through the issues and what the process will look like. I think the idea of punitiveness can infect the way we handle a restorative process. This happens when the facilitator demands "remorse" from the offender. Or, when we try to create the outcomes to fit what we want instead of working with the parties to discover what their needs are and the outcomes that they want. This is my real concern. When the structured process becomes rote without room for creativity. Yes, there is a structured process and preparation is extremely important for the protection of all participants. But, it's not process that treats every case, every offender, or every victim the same. The "no script" is really about the difference between people and the need for more flexibility in responding to those. Thanks for helping me think about this, Christa. Lynette

Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting. Comments are moderated.

Name

Comment

Captcha

Listen to audio for this captcha

RJOB Archive