Rethinking Resistance: A Nervous System Lens for Mediators

Share:

Summary:

This article proposes a reimagined understanding of client resistance in mediation. It suggests that instead of viewing resistance as defiance, mediators should see it as a natural, involuntary physiological response to perceived threat or stress, rooted in the autonomic nervous system’s activation. Drawing upon Neurobiology, specifically Stephen Porges’s Polyvagal Theory, and Solution-Focused Therapy, the article offers a practical four-step framework—Notice It, Name It, Normalize It, and Navigate It—to help mediators remain grounded and facilitate productive conversations by fostering a sense of safety for clients. This approach aims to shift mediators’ perspectives from perceiving clients as “difficult” to recognizing them as individuals experiencing a challenging moment, ultimately promoting collaboration and forward movement.

Listen to the AI Podcast of this article:

Read the Article:

You’re in session. One person continuously rehashes old grievances. Another shuts down and mutters, “This is pointless.” You try reframing, redirecting, even humor, but the tension remains. You’ve hit resistance. Or have you?

What if what we call “resistance” isn’t defiance or deflection, but human biology doing its job?

The Traditional View of Resistance

We’ve all seen it, blame, shutdown, defensiveness. The so-called “difficult person.” Resistance is often framed as attitude, unwillingness, or a lack of motivation. We’re trained to stay neutral.

But, let’s be honest, when someone gets defensive or shuts down, it doesn’t just impact the other parties, it impacts us. We can feel stuck, unsure, or even thrown off. We might second-guess our approach or feel pressured to get things back on track. And there’s that panicky moment where we’re not sure what to do next, worried we’re losing control of the conversation.

What if resistance isn’t something to work around, but something to work with?

A Shift from Problem to Resource: Enter Solution‑Focused Practice

In the 1980s, Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg developed what became known as Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, an approach that moved away from analyzing problems and resistance. Instead, it focused on strengths, cooperation, and movement. Rather than seeing clients as “resisting,” de Shazer encouraged practitioners to look for moments of cooperation, however small, and build from those.

Resistance wasn’t fought, it shifted when attention turned to what was already working.

A New Layer: The Nervous System‑Informed View

Today, advances in neurobiology offer another important lens. Drawing on the work of Dr. Stephen Porges’s Polyvagal Theory, we now understand that many behaviours labelled as resistance – shutting down, escalating, refusing to engage – are often the result of autonomic nervous system activation, not attitude or intention.

According to Porges, our nervous systems are constantly scanning for cues of safety or danger. When we feel threatened, physically or emotionally, our body may shift into a sympathetic state (fight/flight/freeze) or dorsal vagal state (shutdown). This is happening below the level of conscious awareness. These are not intentional decisions; they are involuntary, automatic responses, hardwired into our physiology.

Porges explains:

“If we don’t feel safe, our nervous system automatically shifts into a defensive state that disrupts our ability to connect, listen, and cooperate.”

Clinician and author Deb Dana, who translates this science into everyday practice, puts it simply:

“When we are out of our regulated state, it is biologically impossible to access skills of curiosity, receptivity, problem‑solving, and collaboration.”

When someone appears disengaged or difficult, it may not be about choice. It may be about capacity. Our role as mediator, as I see it, is to shift from asking “Why is this person being so difficult?” to, “What does this person need in order to feel safe enough to engage?”

In the words often credited to SF practitioner Chris Iveson: “This is not a difficult person. This is a person having a difficult time.”

This insight doesn’t just change how we view others, it changes what we do next.

What Can We Do Instead?

We don’t need to be therapists to use this understanding. A simple 3-step framework from Deb Dana can be helpful:

1. Notice It

Before trying to move the conversation forward, see if you can notice what is happening. Our physiological state – Fight/Flight, Freeze, or Fawn – shifts automatically based on whether we perceive safety or threat, preparing us to respond. Many of the behaviors we label as “difficult” are actually signs of nervous system reactivation:

• Fight/Flight: interrupting, sharp tone, blaming, urgent “You’re not hearing me!”, circular conversation, getting defensive, or talking over others
• Freeze: silence, flat voice, blank stare, “I don’t know… whatever…”
• Fawn: quick agreement, over-apologizing, deflecting with humour, minimizing their own needs

When we notice the state beneath the behavior, we can respond in ways that help people feel safer and more able to engage.

These aren’t tactics, they’re biological responses.

2. Name It

When the tone shifts, someone goes quiet, gets louder, or things get tense, try naming what you’re noticing. This helps people reset without putting anyone on the spot.

You might say:

• “I’m noticing something has shifted, should we take a moment before we keep going?”
• “This part of the conversation feels a little heavier. Would a short pause be helpful?”
• “I want to check in, would it be helpful to slow down for a minute here.”

As Dan Siegel puts it, “Name it to tame it”. The goal isn’t to label, it’s to bring awareness to what may be happening.

Naming what’s happening helps the brain shift out of threat mode and begin to settle.

3. Normalize It

When clients get reactive or shut down, they often feel embarrassed or even ashamed of their response, even if they don’t show it. That discomfort can make things worse. Normalizing what’s happening helps take the pressure off and makes it easier to stay in the conversation.

You might say:

• “It’s perfectly normal to react this way. These conversations aren’t easy”
• “That makes sense. This is hard.”
• “You’re not alone, this is a common reaction.”

Normalizing helps reduce shame and defensiveness, making it easier for clients to stay present, reflect, and keep engaging in the process.

It signals that their reaction is human, a natural reaction to a hard moment.

A Fourth Step: Navigate It

The three steps above are foundational. In my experience, there’s one more that helps bridge awareness into action, especially in moments where there’s enough calm to start moving forward. I call it Navigate It.

4. Navigate It

Once there’s awareness and a bit more steadiness, help the conversation move forward, gently, without rushing. This step is about shifting from reactivity to direction, staying grounded while exploring what’s possible.

You might say:

• “What would be helpful for the other person to better understand before we keep going?”
• “What is this telling you is important to you?”
• “What’s missing for you here?”

This isn’t about solving the problem, it’s about creating enough clarity and calm to expand the story and move things forward.

Quick Recap: What You Can Say or Do

1. Notice It. Look for the biology beneath the behavior: what state has this person shifted into?
2. Name It. Reflect the shift you see: “I’m noticing something has shifted. Let’s pause for a moment.”
3. Normalize It. Reassure it’s a human response: “That makes sense. This is hard.”
4. Navigate It. Invite forward movement: “What is this telling you is important to you?”

Final Thought: From Pushback to Partnership

When we expand our lens, resistance is no longer something to override, it’s something to work with. It’s the body saying: “Not yet. Not this way.” It’s a cue for us as mediators to pause, reassess, and respond in a way that better meets the needs of the moment.

Resistance is not a problem. It’s biology doing its job. When we notice, name, and normalize it, we create just enough space to help navigate the conversation in a way that invites safety, curiosity, and the possibility of collaboration.

Endnotes & References

1. de Shazer, S. (1984). The Death of Resistance. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 3(3), 1–5.
2. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
3. Dana, D. (2018). The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy: Engaging the Rhythm of Regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
4. Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
5. Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
6. Iveson, C., George, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). Brief Coaching: A Solution-Focused Approach. Routledge. (Quote adapted from Chris Iveson’s framing of “This is not a difficult person; this is a person having a difficult time.”)