FDR's Four Freedoms applied to Mediation

In this, the BBC’s centenary year, the Reith Lectures (broadcast on Radio 4, starting on 30th November) look at Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”. These were set out at the close of his State of the Union speech in January 1941. They are as relevant today as they were then. Actually, they were not exactly new even then, although they were rather well put by the great man.

It is no secret that FDR is a hero of mine. He was a disabled person who was competitive in the mainstream world. He was a pragmatist and a leader, in many more ways than the obvious. I would like to hope that a century after he contracted the disease which paralysed him, it is no longer necessary to hide a disability to succeed in your career. My own experience tells me that it is still better for the individual to evade barriers than to destroy them: you can get more done personally, though by doing so you do not help up those who follow, so the actual work you do had better be for the greater good. I digress. I came here to talk about FDR’s Four Freedoms. But the point is that FDR knew personally about threats to voice, expression, needs and safety.

By 1941, promises had been made to the American people that they would not be drawn into the war that was happening across the Atlantic in Europe. FDR knew that isolationism would only protect them so far, and that appeasement is no more effective than aggression at resolving conflict. As 1941 dawned, the reality was that the USA was preparing for a war footing, and no amount of arguing would change the global situation they were in.

It was necessary to take a firm stance and do hard things, while holding tight to long-term ideals. Or, as FDR put it “…we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.”

Having heard in the first part of the President’s address about the armament, mobilisation and negotiations that were going on, the American government and people needed to understand why.

The principles that FDR vowed to uphold and protect for the Americas and for the world, in which conflict cannot flourish, are also the foundation for my mediation rooms.

Freedom of Speech

I like listening to people, and the reason is self-centred. There are 8-billion perspectives in this world, and unless I listen, I am missing out on 7,999,999,999 brains full of things I can’t know any other way. Their perspectives do not negate mine, they supplement it.

When I try to understand a situation, everyone else who also observes it knows something that I do not. The sum of all that knowledge is greater than its parts. Fewer mistakes and losses are made if all those perspectives are shared. I succeed if I listen and learn.

Freedom of worship

This might seem outdated in the modern world, but we all worship even though for many it may no longer be in an organised religion. Where speaking is the communication of our beliefs, worship is an action based on them. We all act on our beliefs every day. I brush my teeth because I believe that by doing so I will keep them healthy into old age. I drive on the lefthand side of the road because I have been taught to and have seen that everyone does it, and as a result everyone will be safer. I give to charity because I believe that it is the right thing to do and I trust that my money will be used for good. My actions are expressions of what I believe in.

Often, a dispute arises simply because somebody feels prevented from doing a thing that they believe is right. Address that and the conflict melts away.

Freedom from want

This is a very 1940s way of saying having what you need. Confusingly, it does not mean having everything you want. “Want” is a word with a meaning and usage that has subtly changed over the years as consumerism has flourished.

When people do not have what they need, they fight for it. It’s a survival strategy, from when our ancestors could quickly perish if their basic needs (food, water, warmth etc) were not met or were taken by other people, animals or natural circumstances. By creating an environment where everyone is confident that their core needs will be met (and the primal part of their brain therefore does not fear death) the aggression in the room drops, and the rational part of the brain has space to listen.

Freedom from fear

This is the other part of the primal instinct of “fight or flight”. Our caveman ancestor faced two existential types of threat. The loss of things he needed for survival, and the damage which could be done by an aggressor.

Existing in fear literally shuts your brain down to do only one thing - to get to safety. If you want someone to work with you, to tell you their perspective and to hear yours, then they cannot be in fear. Let’s go back to our caveman. He learnt that by inducing fear in a predator or a thief, he could trigger their flight reflex. And when you are defending your home, your possessions and your family from a threat, all you need is for them to run away. When a dispute centres instead around something you want the other party to do for you, it is not in your interests to inspire fear in anyone. Even great-grand-caveman couldn’t predict how that threatening person or animal would react. Always, in a proportion of cases, by trying to be frightening in response you cause your own losses. In my mediations, we do not entertain fear.

And so, whether it is interaction between countries around the globe, companies in the marketplace, or families in the home, the freedoms of speech and worship, and the freedoms from want and fear, are the foundation for peace, prosperity and progress. Sometimes, the instinctive human in us all needs a focused pragmatist to help us to get there.

The Reith Lectures will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 from 30th November 2022.

To resolve a brewing or ongoing dispute in freedom, go to www.greenparkmediation.com