Professional Mediation and Neurosciences: An Essential Convergence
Why does professional mediation succeed in resolving disputes where other approaches face impasses? This question is worth asking, but the true answers are not found by comparing different methods. Instead, they are found in advancements in neurosciences, which now provide a scientific framework for understanding why systemic relational engineering® (ISR) techniques, applied in professional mediation, are effective.
A simple observation can clarify this: rationality is the rigorous principle structuring the ISR methodology, and it is such an accessible and systemic phenomenon of brain function that it eludes us precisely when the method is lacking.
Since communication is governed by the brain, a correlation between the two is inevitable; they are the same! Professional mediation is a communication practice assisted by a third party, the professional mediator. It is not an alternative dispute resolution method (Lascoux – 2017).
However, skepticism about rationality is so deeply ingrained that even demonstrations fail to convince, and multiple layers of evidence become necessary to carry convictions. Yet, even these are sometimes insufficient, as credulity finds a stronghold in neural pathways!
Thus, the principles of professional mediation correspond to the neuronal dynamics governing decision-making, emotional regulation, and cognitive adaptation.
Brain Plasticity and Adaptation
The human brain is not fixed in its representations. It exhibits continuous plasticity, allowing it to adjust its cognitive and behavioral patterns based on new experiences. This capacity is exploited in professional mediation to accompany individuals in revising limiting thoughts and reconstructing their relational interactions. Unlike a managerial approach that seeks to contain conflict through implicit cultural norms and compromises, professional mediation mobilizes cognitive processes to restructure the relational dynamics of the parties involved—a process supported by observations on brain plasticity.
Emotional Regulation and Decision-Making
Brain function relies on a balance between the amygdala, which regulates emotions, and the prefrontal cortex, the seat of rational analysis. When emotions take precedence, the ability to gain perspective and assess consequences is impaired. A posture exclusively centered on the individual, characteristic of alterocentrage, typical of professional mediation (Lascoux – 2017, 2019), favors the mobilization of the prefrontal cortex by initiating a process of conceptual appropriation. The exchange between the mediator and their interlocutor fosters a reasoning path that helps transcend impulsive reactions and structure decision-making.
Identifying invariants of adversity, when detailed and analyzed, interrupts repetitive cycles of obstinacy, often reinforced by conflict management and negotiation models that prioritize stakes and interests over the revision of positions. Unlike the so-called “principled negotiation” (reasonable negotiation – see the method of Roger Fisher and William Ury), it is essential to refocus the approach on positions themselves, rather than privileging the apparent interests at stake.
Does the Method Have Limits?
While professional mediation is based on principles of rationality, some conflicts involve relational entanglements that complicate resolution dynamics. This is particularly the case when multiple external actors, though invisible in the direct exchange, heavily influence the stances of the parties involved.
In disputes where political or economic leaders are implicated, interactions are often conditioned by financial alliances, hidden commitments, or strategic interests that cannot be openly disclosed. Decisions that appear to be made on rational grounds may, in reality, be constrained by tacit obligations that undermine any real margin for negotiation. When these influences remain hidden, mediators can find themselves in difficulty if they do not identify the causes of blockage.
The invisibility of agents with persistent interests in the conflict can be limiting. Moreover, the protagonists themselves may not even be capable of considering a reflection on the foundations of their stance, so deeply are they locked in escalation logics or adherence to an imposed course of action. Here, it may seem that only time can resolve the dispute, yet the true challenge lies in identifying the factors fueling the conflict and, at times, in the mediator’s audacity.
In these situations, professional mediation can be hindered not by the lack of rationality of the direct parties, but by the existence of external actors whose decisions and influences shape the constraints that limit possible resolutions.
Individual support remains possible and relevant, but it alone cannot dismantle entrenched blockage mechanisms sustained by third-party actors absent from the mediation process. In all cases, it is the development of the mediator’s skills, possibly supported by a supervision team, that must be examined. Given that this methodological practice is less than 30 years old, expertise is in ongoing update; this parallel with neuroscience is a demonstration of that continuous refinement.
A Model Based on the Logic of Interactions
Systemic relational engineering®, applied in professional mediation, is based on a precise analysis of human interactions. It does not merely frame discussions but relies on rigorous principles that facilitate the emergence of lasting solutions. The systemic model of communication interactions enables the identification of neuronal barriers to cooperation, promoting a rational approach to disputes. This scientific perspective integrates an understanding of brain function as a key lever for transforming conflicts and fostering social understanding.
Conclusion
Thus, far from being an intuitive or purely empirical approach, professional mediation stands as a discipline rooted in the rationality of brain function. It is built upon scientific principles that confer observable efficacy, aligning with the latest advancements in neuroscience. The consideration of neuroplasticity and brain regulatory dynamics provides an explanation for its success while opening new perspectives for supporting individuals in conflict situations.
These observations allow us to envision an entirely new theory of brain function, challenging those that currently tend to hold authority. And it is from this approach that we can foresee new research and innovation perspectives, question established paradigms, and consider unprecedented applications in interpersonal relations, social structures, management, governance, and even communication technologies.
Keywords
Cognitive adaptation, Amygdala, Alterocentrage, Conflict, Constraints, Prefrontal cortex, Decision-making, Relational dynamics, Social understanding, Governance, Systemic relational engineering (ISR), Human interaction, Interpretations, Professional mediation, Systemic model, Neuroplasticity, Neurosciences, Brain plasticity, Cognitive process, Emotional regulation, Rationality, Escalation.
Références
- The Emotional Brain. Simon & Schuster. LeDoux, J. 1996
- An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167-202. E. K. Miller & J. D. Cohen 2001
- Changes in grey matter induced by training—new insights from a longitudinal study using MRI. Nature Neuroscience, 6(8), 844-846, B. Draganski, C. Gaser, V. Busch, G. Schuierer, U. Bogdahn, & A. May, 2004.
- Comprendre le cerveau : naissance d’une science de l’apprentissage, OCDE, Wu Ting-Fang (2007)
- Plasticité fonctionnelle du cerveau et apprentissage moteur, medecinesciences.org, coordonné par Julien Doyon (2011)
- Neurosciences et éducation, dossier coordonné par Pascale Toscani et Sylvain Connac, 2018
- Emotional regulation and the neural bases of anxiety. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(4), 223-231. Etkin, A., Egner, T., & Kalisch, R. 2011
- Pratique de la Médiation professionnelle. Lascoux J-L. ESF, 2017
- Dictionnaire de la médiation. Lascoux J-L. ESF, 2019
