Worldview and Mediation
WORLDVIEW AND MEDIATION 4
Anyperson’s perception of his life and the things that pertain to thesame is fundamental to the course that his or her life takes. Indeed,this defines the manner in which an individual carries himself orherself, as well as the decisions and actions takes. This isessentially what is meant by an individual’s worldview. A worldviewis defined as a set or framework of fundamental beliefs via which anindividual perceives the world, as well as his or her calling andfuture in the same. In general, it is the ethical, perceptual, andcognitive frames of an individual (Goldberg, 2009). Some scholarshave also defined it as encompassing the psychological or cognitiveprocesses like boundary establishment, categorization, as well as thecreation and utilization of schema or scripts (Goldberg, 2009). Ofparticular note is the fact that the vision serves as a channel ormedium for the ultimate beliefs that direct and give meaning to anindividual’s life. Underlining its importance is the fact that itdoubles up as the set of hinges on which the everyday thoughts andactions of an individual turn.
Asan individual living in the 21stcentury, my worldview is that violence and war may be viable but notsufficient or even necessary techniques for solving conflicts betweenany parties. In fact, I believe that every other conflict has itsroots to the fundamental values and beliefs that the disputants hold.Violence and wars only become an option when the disputants do notshare a common ground or similar values. In most cases, disputes arecentered on the interests of the parties, in which case looking formediation strategies that seek to satisfy the claims or interests ofthe disputants would be imperative. Further, it is my belief thatthere are things that there are things that are fundamentally andabsolutely right, in which case no person should be calling forcompromise over the same. As a moral authority, however, no partyshould tell the other what to do and how to do it, or even the rulesthat should be followed, rather every party must be allowed toexplore its options in pursuit of its happiness and the fulfillmentof its interests as long as its efforts are not detrimental to theexistence of other parties. This is essentially a worldview thattakes on a “live-and-let-live” philosophy.
Myworldview is mostly compatible with the realistic-end (orinterest-based roles). Realism underlines an orientation todecision-making that lays emphasis on the belief that humancomprehension comes via interaction, in which case it concentrates onsocial learning and interpersonal relations (Goldberg, 2009). Therealistic end focuses on the interests of individuals and aims atassisting parties to come up with more realistic solutions, as wellas an orientations pertaining to the world as it is or “reality”(Goldberg, 2009). This is similar to the interest-based model whichfocuses on the disputants’ predisposing interests and needs, whileencouraging a wide range of resolutions or solutions that address theunderlying interests of the parties rather than or alongside legalinterests. Of particular note is the fact that the approach may comeup with a resolution that is satisfactory to the disputants but onewhich is not in line with the existing legal norms. Nevertheless, therecognition of the fact that interests drive the values thatindividuals have and are, consequently, the basis for disputes allowsfor quick resolution of disputes.
Goldberg,R. M (2009). How Our Worldviews Shape Our Practice. ConflictResolution Quarterly.Vol. 26. Issue No. 4