Free Will Is an Illusion. Can Mediation Survive Without It?

The concept of agency has long been considered a cornerstone of mediation. The idea that parties in conflict have the capacity to make autonomous decisions and craft their own solutions is central to the very definition of the mediation process. In fact, the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, originally developed in 1994 through a joint effort by the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association, and the Association for Conflict Resolution, define self-determination as “the act of coming to a voluntary, uncoerced decision in which each party makes free and informed choices as to process and outcome.” The Standards emphasize that parties may exercise self-determination at any stage of mediation, including “mediator selection, process design, participation in or withdrawal from the process, and outcomes.” Roger Fisher and William Ury’s seminal work, Getting to Yes, similarly emphasizes that the success of a mediation process relies on helping parties recognize their interests and make independent decisions that serve those interests. Mediation theory, especially the interest-based approach, rests on the assumption that people have the capacity to weigh options, reflect on their needs, and make reasoned decisions about how to resolve their conflicts. In short, mediation has always been about fostering and protecting the decision-making agency of the parties.

But what if this foundational assumption is flawed? What if human beings do not actually have the kind of free will that the concept of agency depends upon? That is the question that has been on my mind ever since I read neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky’s Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Sapolsky makes the case that there are no “uncaused causes.” Every action, every decision, and every reaction is the result of a long chain of biological, psychological, and environmental causes stretching back in time. The state of the neurons in your brain as you read this sentence depend, absolutely, on the state they were in a few milliseconds before. And that state was determined by the state they were in a few milliseconds before that. And so on. If you keep tracing the state of “you” backwards in time, you will quickly follow that thread to causes that are completely outside of your influence (your genetics, your family culture, the broader culture around you, etc., etc.)

If we accept that the universe is a place like this – a place of cause and effect – the rational (and perhaps unpleasant) conclusion is that everything we do is determined by prior causes. Believing in free will thus becomes a metaphysical claim that we are somehow immune to this unbroken chain of cause and effect. Comforting, perhaps, but with no basis in our scientific understanding of the universe. We are, in fact, simply acting out the impulses that have resulted from causes entirely outside of ourselves. “But wait,” most of us say, “I have the sensation of choosing amongst alternatives, all the while being aware of the consequences of that choice. Is that not free will?” The question that is important, says Sapolsky, is whether you are free to be the sort of person that would choose anything other than what you chose (not to mention that advances in neuroimaging have shown us, starting with Benjamin Libet, that the sensation of having chosen is actually a post-decision phenomenon, sometimes by many seconds). In other words, we should not confuse being free to “choose” what we want with being free to want something other than what our genes and environmental conditioning have made us want (or not want!).

Another prominent neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris, invites us to notice how hollow the idea of free will is simply by examining our own experience as conscious beings. Ask yourself this question: The thoughts and feelings you’re having as you read this – did you choose them? Did you at any point plan to have them? Or did they arise from your consciousness unbidden, and completely outside of your control? Do you have any idea why you had those thoughts rather than an infinite number of other thoughts you could have had? When we really take a good look at our own consciousness, it is plain that we experience it more like the weather than like being at a steering wheel (here’s a great talk on free will in which Harris goes further down this rabbit hole).

If we accept determinism as true, there are huge ramifications for moral and legal responsibility, and even identity, that I will not delve into in this article. Given that there is no danger that people many will accept the idea (since the ramifications often feel unpleasant enough that most reject it outright), I think it’s safe to confine my thoughts to a narrow slice of what accepting determinism might mean for mediators.

Mediation in a Determinist Context

Imagine that a party in a mediation erupts in anger when discussing a financial settlement. A mediator operating under traditional assumptions might understand that the anger is not simply about the money, but about underlying emotional needs, perhaps feelings of betrayal or fear of loss. What a determinist perspective adds is the understanding that even those underlying emotional needs and responses are themselves caused by a long chain of prior experiences and conditioning. The anger, from this view, was not truly chosen; it was the inevitable result of a causal chain stretching back long before the mediation session began. And given that chain of events, nothing else could have happened in that moment except for that emotional eruption.

So, if human behavior is fully determined by prior causes, and we truly are experiencing our minds like the weather (or in highly emotionally charged situations, perhaps a rollercoaster) does the idea of agency, even the version of agency that Moore and Fisher describe, make any sense? And if parties are simply acting out scripts shaped by genetics and environment, can we meaningfully say they are “making decisions” or “resolving conflicts” in any real way? If Sapolsky is right, then mediation would seem to reduce to a kind of theater: parties going through the motions of negotiation while the outcome was already determined before they ever entered the room.

This fairly sad viewpoint misses the point that change still happens in a universe determined by cause and effect, and that “agency” can exist as something other than a synonym for free will. The traditional view of agency is it means that people have the intrinsic ability to choose between options and determine their own futures. But agency may not require free will to be meaningful. Agency could instead be understood as the subjective experience of control and the capacity to respond to conflict with insight and flexibility, even if those responses are ultimately shaped by prior causes. If the mediator’s role is to support the parties in responding more constructively to conflict, then understanding the underlying causes of behavior makes the mediator’s task more focused and effective, rather than less.

This redefinition of agency provides the mediator with a deeper and more practical framework for addressing conflict. A deterministic framework does not eliminate the capacity for reflective action; it explains why reflective action is difficult and why certain patterns of behavior are so entrenched. That insight may give the mediator a more sophisticated and compassionate way of helping parties navigate their conflicts, deepening what they already know about the emotional and psychological dimensions of conflict. It is not news to any experienced mediator that anger, defensiveness, and withdrawal are almost always, if not always, tied to deeper emotional experiences of fear, loss or a sense of powerlessness. What determinism adds is an understanding that those emotions, while “belonging” to a participant in mediation, are no more chosen by them than the color of their eyes, and that the roots of the feelings stretch backwards in time to early experiences over which they had no control. The mediator knows that not only is the party’s anger about the financial settlement a single domino in the unbroken chain of causes that stretches back into their childhood (and long before), but also that recognizing this continuity allows a more substantial reframing of the conflict away from blame.

A deterministic approach may also sharpen the mediator’s ability to frame issues and shape the negotiation environment in ways that account for predictable cognitive and emotional responses. Behavioral economics and cognitive psychology have shown that human decision-making is shaped by biases like loss aversion, confirmation bias, and status quo bias. A determinist mediator understands that these biases are not the result of poor reasoning or stubbornness; they are deeply ingrained patterns that have been shaped by evolution and social conditioning. 

Lastly, a powerful aspect of a deterministic framework is that it encourages deeper empathy. If human behavior is shaped by prior causes, then no party truly chooses to be in conflict. The very human feelings of wanting to blame, or to feel shame, make no logical sense in a universe where we have not just done the best we can do, but the only thing we can do. A mediator who understands this may be more capable of approaching difficult behavior with patience and understanding. Anger, defensiveness, and resistance could be more easily seen as an inevitable pattern of responses formed over time than personal failings. This shift in perspective may help a mediator create an environment where the parties feel safe enough to engage more openly and constructively with the conflict.

While determinism challenges the idea of free will, it does not mean that change is impossible or that the mediator’s role is diminished. Even if people’s behavior is shaped by prior causes, human beings remain social creatures who influence one another in powerful ways. A mediator’s ability to create trust, ask the right questions, and help parties uncover deeper interests is itself part of the causal chain. When a mediator helps a party recognize the roots of their defensiveness or find a way to rebuild trust, that moment of clarity becomes a new cause that can shift the trajectory of the conflict. A change that would now be understood to be causally determined, but no less meaningful. In fact, it underscores just how significant the mediator’s role is. Being the person who introduces that moment of understanding, who creates the conditions for a more constructive outcome, is a privilege. Even if none of us chooses to be who we are, we can still help each other grow and respond to conflict with greater understanding.

Josh Remis

Josh is head of Digital Operations at Mediate.com. He has been a “computerphile” since the Commodore 64 and gains most satisfaction from his work when he can apply his skills against a technical challenge and develop more efficient systems. He has designed the many iterations of Mediate.com over the years… MORE