Impartiality

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All- partisanship describes an attitude of willingness to identify and to be partisan with everyone involved in a system or a conflict.

The impartiality is an attitude that a moderator (or conflict moderator, mediator, arbitrator, coach or therapist) takes in the context of conflict moderation , mediation , arbitration , systemic organizational counseling , systemic therapy or family therapy . In concrete terms, impartiality means that moderators “ try to understand the concerns and expectations of all parties and try to convey mutual understanding ” and thereby “help the parties to articulate and justify their concerns if necessary”. The impartiality requires inner flexibility, empathy and the ability to put aside own concerns on the part of the moderator .

The concept was developed in the US by Iván Böszörményi-Nagy as part of his work with families ( multi-directed partiality ) and it was called for as the basis of his contextual therapy approach . The concept was later highlighted as the basis of mediation (English multipartiality or omnipartiality ).

In concrete conflict situations, such as one encounters in mediation - one party A does, omits or intends to do something and another party B feels disturbed by it - the all-partisanship leads to a paradoxical call to action: the partisanship for everyone in a given conflict The consequence of the person or group involved is to want to assert the interests of a person or group and at the same time to undermine this request by endeavoring as a representative of the other side to prevent the interests from being carried out.

In short, taking sides in a conflict on all sides means trying to enforce and thwart the claims of each party at the same time.

The concept of all-partisanship must therefore not carry the element of all-round partisanship with it, even if the compound “all-partisanship” implies this.

In family therapy and social work, if necessary, impartiality or neutrality is deviated from and the child or young person takes sides in the interests of the best interests of the child.

Demarcation from neutrality

A distinction is made between impartiality and neutrality or impartiality. With neutrality or impartiality, there is an emotional distance and no sides are taken with either party. In the case of impartiality, on the other hand, each party involved in the conflict or system is interacted empathically at a given point in time, without preferring one party. All-partisanship does not mean taking sides alternately for one side and for the other. However, it is permissible for a mediator (or one of the mediators within a mediator team) to take sides temporarily to the extent that he gives special support to one of the parties. All-partisanship demands (distanced) neutrality on the factual level but no (distanced) neutrality on the relationship level .

In view of the fact that the impartiality is an inner attitude and insofar it is difficult to observe and check, the systemic advice sometimes places more value on neutrality in terms of the effect achieved.

A distinction is also made between neutrality and impartiality with regard to judicial and extrajudicial dispute resolution: neutrality is expected of a judge, whereas the requirement of impartiality is often mentioned with regard to an arbitrator or mediator.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b c Rainer Schwing, Andreas Fryszer: Systemic craft: tool for practice. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, ISBN 978-3-647-45372-9 , p. 86.
  2. ↑ a b Stephanie van de Loo: Reconciliation work: criteria, theological framework, practical perspectives. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-17-020717-2 , p. 200.
  3. ↑ Reinert Hanswille: Handbook of systemic child and adolescent psychotherapy. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, ISBN 978-3-525-40195-8 , p. 23.
  4. ↑ Iván Böszörményi-Nagy (1965). Quoted from: Fritz B. Simon, Ulrich Clement, Helm Stierlin: The language of family therapy: a vocabulary. Critical overview and integration of systems therapy terms, concepts and methods. Klett-Cotta, 2004, ISBN 3-608-94395-1 , p. 29.
  5. ↑ Silke Freitag, Jens Richter (Ed.): Mediation - the practice book . 1st edition. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim and Basel 2015, ISBN 978-3-407-36604-7 , pp. 12 .
  6. ↑ Marcus Andreasson: The concept of impartiality . In: Journal for Conflict Management . Issue 3/17. Publishing house Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne 2017, p. 99-102 .
  7. ^ Cloke (2001). Quoted from: Edward Sellman, Hilary Cremin, Gillean McCluskey: Restorative Approaches to Conflict in Schools: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Whole School Approaches to Managing Relationships. Routledge, 2013, ISBN 978-1-134-51459-5 , p. 237.
  8. ↑ Michael Böcher, Max Krott, Sebastian Tränkner: Regional Governance and Integrated Rural Development: Results of the Accompanying Research on the Model and Demonstration Project "Regions Active". Springer-Verlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-531-91100-7 , p. 182.
  9. ↑ Stephanie van de Loo: Reconciliation work: criteria, theological framework, practical perspectives. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-17-020717-2 , p. 201.
  10. ↑ Martin Carman, Martina Schulte-Derne: Questions and listening. In: G. Falk, P. Heintel, E. Krainz (eds.): Handbook Mediation and Conflict Management - Writings on group and organizational dynamics. Volume 3, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005, p. 299. Quoted from: Stephanie van de Loo: Reconciliation work: criteria, theological framework, practical perspectives. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-17-020717-2 , p. 200 (footnote 106).
  11. ↑ Jochen Schweitzer, Arist von Schlippe: Textbook of systemic therapy and advice I: The basic knowledge. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, ISBN 978-3-647-40185-0 . P. 205.