I’m not really a fan of musicals so I was rather surprised to find myself responding to a friend’s recommendation and booking tickets for of ‘Hamilton’. Having taken the plunge I went further and started on Ron Chernow’s epic biography of Alexander Hamilton.
Both the performance and the book are excellent. The show is great entertainment and the book a masterful exploration of the man and the events in which he played a pivotal role. Both bring to life some of the political and personal tensions at the birth of the USA which are as relevant today as the were over two hundred years ago.
On of the central tensions relates to the balance between freedom of action and cooperation and control for the wider good. In Hamilton this was exemplified by the relationship between the States and the Federal Government, but it exists at all levels be it individuals and families or organisations and society at large or the relationship within and between sovereign nations. It goes to the heart of defining the role of government and collective decision making.
On the one hand there is a desire for liberty, control over one’s destiny, agency, discretion and independence. On the other there are the benefits of cooperation: division of labour, economies of scale, security, purchasing power, sharing of burdens, regulation of externalities. It is a fine balance.
The US Constitution, that Hamilton played such an important part in developing and implementing, is one of the great examples of putting in place rules, structures and institutions to try and mediate and manage these tensions. The treaties that govern the European Union are another.
Over and above these formal mechanisms the relationship between individuals and institutions is also crucial. If relationships are strong they can help lubricate some of the rubbing points that are bound to be found in any arrangements which can’t foresee all eventualities. If they are weak there is a risk that the formal processes will descend into transactional squabbles, which can build into a vicious circle of mistrust.
As with all relationships they can be fragile and as Hamilton’s story demonstrates they can be easily disrupted by perceived slights, ambition, jealousy and personal baggage. Mediators know well when this happens there is a real danger that underlying interests can be forgotten as positions are taken and defended, ‘tribes’ are formed and all sorts of cognitive biases kick in.
At its most extreme this can lead to violence which further tightens the vicious circle, obscures interests and makes escape even harder. As Hamilton himself put it: “Wars oftener (sic) proceed from angry and perverse passions than from cool calculations of interest.”
Anger, resentment, victimhood and polarisation seem to be ever more prevalent in political discourse of all types and at all levels today. More than ever some cool calculation of underlying interest along with deeper relationship building and understanding of the interests of others seems to be essential. As mediators we shouldn’t ‘throw away our shot’ and be alive to opportunities to cool things down and facilitate greater understanding.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.
Life of Alexander Hamilton, like several other historical figures, is a very good example of a relentless struggle to reconcile several divergent and even contradictory forces. Mediators can learn a lot from eventful careers of such public-spirited individuals. Reading biographies and autobiographies is therefore, helpful. Patience, persistence, perseverance, farsightedness, introspection, willingness to listen to others and an enduring optimism play a very crucial role in the life of everybody at various stages. Notwithstanding the challenges posed by cantankerous parties and pressure exerted by unforeseen circumstances, it is essential for the mediators to stay calm, balanced, fair, objective and neutral. One should be able to facilitate conversation between disputing parties along the path of long-term mutual interests, instead of getting bogged down in the quagmire of deeply entrenched rigid positions. Movement from positions toward interests enables parties to think of protecting their long-term interests. That leads to a win-win solution and happiness among all the disputants.