Humanizing Conflict in Sport by Samantha Heron (she/her)
Conflict, while challenging, serves to help identify values for those in the system in a way that those outside of the system can understand.
As an administrator and mediator involved with the process, my heart goes out to the folks who feel overwhelmed or let down by a process that often cannot be sensitive to the harm and stress involved for all individuals who are somehow involved. I am proud of how I show up with empathy and consideration for the people I work with, and given experience as a complainant, I can understand the threatening experience an individual may be having. But I also feel, like many others in the space, a burnout and limited capacity to consistently show up for the folks experiencing big emotions and harm. When exposed on a daily basis, it is hard to recover. In demonstrating empathy and compassion throughout a process, I am fearful I will unwillingly demonstrate a bias or procedural unfairness that will impact resolution.
There is frustration when the only mechanism available is not the right mechanism for addressing all harm. There is frustration when the mechanism is closely aligned with our criminal justice and police system, which for many folks and communities is not a safe system. There is frustration when financial, accessibility, or policy barriers to processing conflict get in the way of meaningfully addressing harm.
My experience over the past year working on conflict resolution across a number of sectors, but particularly within sport, has offered a few reflections on what is beyond the headlines of these safe sport complaints:
The Safe Sport movement can at times feel overwhelming. What we need to remind ourselves is that, like a dam breaking, this first flood of complaints shows the trust that has been built into the system. This puts the safe sport movement into a triage situation, where we have to use tools to address harms that are not appropriate for what we are trying to achieve. However, these are the tools we understand.
As we move forward, stakeholders in the system are starting to recognize that as historical cases with historical tools move through the system, the new cases are going to need new tools. I am hopeful that in this phase where the floodgates are open, that we also take time to step back and look to the future to see how to address a new sports context and build new tools before entering conflict based spaces.
Currently, the safe sport system exists to respond to conflict and complaint through a quasi-judicial process that is reflective of our justice systems across Canada. Procedural fairness and natural justice are a priority, and the procedures reflect that. Similar to arguing a case in court, parties to a conflict are required to argue their experiences against a narrow and high threshold for maltreatment or Code of Conduct violation. This process has its place, and was appropriate to immediately respond to longstanding and unchecked experiences of maltreatment without interference from individuals or organizations who have something to gain or lose by hiding maltreatment.
At the same time, conflict dependent, this process creates an “other” of the individuals or the process, and through nature of complex circumstances the individuals involved become hostile, aggressive and victims of destructive conflict dynamics (Mariese, 2003). A highly litigious and highly conflictual space rarely brings the appropriate resolution for ANY party and does not lend itself to relationship repair when individuals remain in community together.
Given the above, this process cannot remain the only option for addressing conflict across the sport system (and beyond) because we can’t possibly address harm, broken cultural norms, patterns of subvert behaviour and dehumanizing experiences through a narrow and often complex complaints mechanism. So what are the possibilities for change?
- I am hopeful that after or alongside establishing a complaints mechanism, organizations and communities will call for mechanisms that are focused on harm reduction, Alternative Dispute Resolution (think mediation or circle processes) and will invite and incorporate community into problem solving conflicts.
- I am hopeful we can develop harm reduction practices, approaches, and programs that limit the need to enter litigious complaint mechanisms and instead result in creative, community oriented, resolution focused outcomes that provide choice, especially to the individuals who experienced the harm.
- I am hopeful that we can find ways to find commonalities between individuals involved in conflict to uncover shared interests. By finding the human in each other, we no longer place another’s needs and rights in a position above ourselves, and can find resolution by focusing on shared interests versus remaining stuck in our differing positions.
- I am hopeful that we educate and remind our communities that we are all humans, and that by remembering our ‘opponent’ is a part of a larger eco-system with shared similarities, we can stop dehumanizing by reverting to the harsh tactics and instead build trust to engage in reconciliation. This goes for the individuals delivering the system too – I work amongst great problem solvers who excel when trust, respect and mutual security is a priority. (Beyond Intractability, 2003).
I get it – humanizing is scary and I often feel like the last person who would NEVER take this approach. Humanizing feels like the last thing anyone wants to do when they are in some way harmed by a process. However – I have seen how humanizing each other (including the decision makers and authorities within our organizations) can coax leaders into making bold decisions on how to prioritize harm reduction and stop organizations from ‘’passing the buck.” Humanizing individuals allows us to provide space for folks to apologize and take responsibility for where they have caused harm. Let’s recognize the toll punitive actions cause and instead refocus our approach to invite people into our moral communities and to avoid collective suffering and instead engage in collective healing.
As I reflect on the last year working within the “Safe Sport” space, and specifically navigating mediations, conflict, and complaints, I can’t help but feel apprehensive for the upcoming year of conflict and complaint management across the sport system. At the same time, I am hopeful that as awareness grows about how the safe sport frameworks can (and can’t) respond to conflict, we become curious about approaches centered on humanizing individuals, prioritizing safety, and emphasize problem solving and collaboration.