On Mediation and “Deconstructivism”

Introduction

Imagine a Lego structure built by children that falls apart during play, scattering into small bricks.

We expect the children who built it to react with anger, mutual accusations, perhaps even a violent quarrel.

Yet often a different solution emerges, based on an intuitive understanding of play. For children, as in tennis, the collapsed structure was only one game or set in a series. The bricks stimulate their imagination and they build something new, usually different. Sometimes it is better; sometimes several structures replace one. Rebuilding is challenging and satisfying, improving both play and teamwork. The time spent is anything but boring. The result may be more beautiful or better than what collapsed.

Imagine a similar event in a restaurant kitchen. The team prepares a special dish, but it fails. Instead of despairing, they use the same ingredients to invent a new, tastier dish.

These examples belong to the deconstructivist world: dismantling what exists, examining it, revealing hidden qualities and using the same components to create something new.

Deconstructivism in Culture

In literature, “deconstruction” is not “demolition”; it is closer to “analysis,” whose etymological meaning is to break apart, to de-construct. Deconstructivism does not take outward appearance for granted. It critiques, observes and engages with it, seeking the positive within what appears negative.

Deconstructivism appears in literature, poetry, architecture and design. “Deconstructivism entered mainstream design journalism with the exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture at MoMA in 1988, curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley[1].” In Wigley’s words, “A deconstructivist architect is therefore not one who dismantles buildings, but one who locates the inherent dilemmas within buildings. The deconstructivist architect puts the pure forms of the architectural tradition on the couch and identifies the symptoms of a repressed impurity. The impurity is drawn to the surface by a combination of gentle coaxing and violent torture: the form is interrogated.”

Ellen Lupton Abbott Miller write in their article[2] that “for Wigley, deconstructivism in architecture questions modernism through a re-examination of its own language, materials and processes.”

[1] Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1988)

[1] Deconstruction and Graphic Design, Ellen Lupton Abbott Miller (published in Bezalel, Journal of Visual and Material Culture, issue 6, January 2020)

“In Derrida’s theory, deconstruction asks how representation inhabits reality. How does the external image of things enter into their internal essence? How does the surface penetrate beneath the skin? Since Plato, Western culture has been dominated by oppositions such as reality/representation, inside/outside, copy/original and mind/body. Western intellectual achievements—science, art, philosophy and literature—have consistently privileged one side, associating it with truth and the other with falsehood. Deconstruction challenges such oppositions by showing how the negative, less-valued term resides within the positive, valued one.”

Deconstructivism in Mediation

Mediation through a deconstructive approach can be described as a process of “dismantling and reassembly.” The mediator encourages parties to view from outside the breakdown that produced the conflict, accept it, identify their differences and the pure elements of their relationship, connect hidden and visible components, and build a new solution without confronting their arguments or criticizing them from an external legal or moral standpoint.

The deconstructive approach is not about “demolition”. If anything is destroyed during deconstruction, it is only the barrier to a solution, such as conflicting interpretations, forcefulness, aggression or domination.

Practically, before examining solutions, every mediator closely and intimately examines the parties’ claims, reveals their logical structure and what each seeks to show or conceal, helps identify the best components of their relationship, and identifies their interests.

In the deconstructive approach, the mediator helps parties build a solution that is the “next stop”: a new stage in their relationship. Naturally, the sequel differs from the relationship they knew on entering mediation. Developing a solution that “replaces the old with the new” therefore requires courage from everyone. This new chapter is based on the same “old ingredients,” yet differs from what the disputing parties knew when mediation began.

Building a solution this way requires teamwork and an experience reminiscent of play. The central achievement lies in how the parties act. Working together is essential to restoring trust and understanding. Jointly examining the conflict teaches them that the collapsed “contract,” “home” or “business” can form the basis of another, better suited to them.

The result is a new arrangement or structure built from the same basic materials that formed their troubled relationship. This time, however, those building blocks are used in a new, different, more suitable and sometimes more creative way, enabling coexistence, shared management or separation in pursuit of an agreed purpose: the business’s, children’s or product’s interests, or better relations between a local authority and residents, for example.

As in every style of mediation, the mediator and parties have many varied options. But the fundamental components of their relationship must remain within the chosen solution’s puzzle, because they are its “glue.”

[1] Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1988)

[2] Deconstruction and Graphic Design, Ellen Lupton Abbott Miller (published in Bezalel, Journal of Visual and Material Culture, issue 6, January 2020)