Nonetheless, any statute that requires a mediator to “be impartial” ignores advances in mind sciences and human nature (regardless of how much self-awareness the mediator cultivates or how much practice he or she has had). It serves no one well. A more realistic approach can be found in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution, Rule 9(b), which provides that a mediator “shall provide dispute resolution services in an impartial manner. Impartiality means freedom from favoritism and bias in conduct as well as appearance.” It focuses on conduct and not on a state of being. That specifies a more realistic goal, acknowledging we can’t control our own judgments and reactions but at least we can strive to recognize and manage them so that they don’t subvert the process.

I have a different perspective on neutrality. I don’t think of it as an absolute, as in “I am neutral,” or “I am not neutral.” I think of it as a practice. Not a state that is attainable like enlightenment but something you practice in mediation and facilitation. Mathematically I think of it as asymptotic, you can approach it like an ever smaller fraction, but not attain it. (It happens that I am among the least neutral people I’ve ever know in the rest of life.)

When Pablo Casals, the world’s leading cellist of his time, fell during a country walk and broke a finger he said, “Oh thank God, I don’t have to practice.” Me, I need all the practice I can get.