Every conflict looks, at first glance, like a confrontation between two poles...
Husband VS wife.
Employer VS employee.
State VS insurgent.
We instinctively read it as binary: one versus the other, force against force, argument against argument.
But the real leverage - and the real risk - enters when a third party steps in.
From that moment, the conflict becomes a triangle, and triangles are NOT stable.
With two players, the rules are simple: they either fight until one dominates, or they compromise and stabilize.
Add a third player, and the game changes completely!
Two can always team up against the third. The one left out will work to flip the alliance. As loyalties shift, the balance never holds for long...
Enemy become temporary ally, allies becoming enemies, and the game is never over.
That's why in diplomacy - and in human relationships - triangles are unstable by design.
What the third really does
The third may often appear as neutral, supportive, even benevolent:
- A mediator who "seeks balance"
- A confidant who "offers perspective"
- A witness who "simply listens"
But beware... ontologically, the third is never neutral.
By entering in the picture, it alters the architecture:
- It shifts the axis of loyalty.
- It reframes the meaning of the conflict.
- It defines legitimacy, not through force, but through narrative.
The Grey Zone nature of mediation
Mediation always looks virtuous, somehow. When you think about it, it's absurd, because it truly isn't.
In diplomacy, in couples therapy, in business disputes, we celebrate the role of the "neutral third".
Mediation is the most Grey Zone practice imaginable!