Whereas Moore, Coursework Example

Whereas Moore does reference gender issues in his text, his conception of how gender may affect mediation is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, Moore introduces his account of gender within the context of mediation on the basis of scientific research conducted on how gender may or may not influence mediation. Moore accordingly notes that the body of research on this topic is scarce, and, furthermore, that research which has been carried out has not argued for mediation being significantly impacted by gender. On the other hand, he emphasizes the need to be conscious of how gender may influence the mediation process, for example, that gender may determine behaviors in mediation. Yet Moore quite compellingly also mentions that gender should be looked at in accordance with the phenomenon of power relations: namely, the entire concept of gender is based on the notion that it is a social construct. Hence, while gender does refer to differences between men and women, these are social roles and thus malleable and subject to change. In this sense, Moore does address gender adequately, to the extent that he acknowledges that gender is not innate to a man or a woman, but is rather socially informed. Being aware of gender, following Moore, is therefore not an issue of how men and women may react in a given mediation situation, but the exact opposite: one should not expect men or women to act in a certain way in a certain situation, because this is a superficial presupposition which is imposed by social normativities.

Moore does focus on the question of how culture impacts mediation, however, in a more pragmatic and example-based manner, as opposed to a theoretical manner. Hence, instead of asking why do different cultures have different styles of mediation, or if such differences are in fact a reality, he instead at various times throughout the work references very specific features of mediation in particular cultures. Thus, Moore notes that the so-called “benevolent” mediator is more commonplace in non-Western cultures as opposed to Western cultures. Furthermore, to the extent that Moore suggests that, for example, Islamic culture is a culture with a long history of mediation practices, this also would imply that some cultures do not place value on mediation. Accordingly, Moore’s approach to the question of culture and mediation is one based on achieving practical examples of mediation within a given cultural context as opposed to developing a full-fledged theory of how culture may affect mediation and vice versa. Within the context of Moore’s work, this is not a drawback, in so far as his focus is to provide strategies of mediation and not analyze the theoretical foundations of the relationship between mediation and culture.

Power is a crucial feature of Moore’s text, to the extent that many situations of mediation and, by extension, strategies of mediation, are entirely based on the structure of what he calls power relations. For example, if power is distributed unequally, mediation will have to take an entirely different form. In this sense, Moore’s treatment of power is above all valuable in its identification of how power operates so as to create radically different mediation situations. At the same time, what would be perhaps a compelling supplement to Moore’s analysis is a more theoretical approach to power, for example, using the extensive work on the concept of power developed by Michel Foucault. This would potentially further illustrate how power operates in mediation situations, since this addition would clarify exactly what power is and how it affects relationships between parties.