Current theory on the processing of disputes usually contrasts modern courts and their adjudicated, norm-based, coercive judgments with tribal moods which use mediation to reach negotiated, noncoercive outcomes. However, actual case data show many similarities between the two processes. Descriptions of tribal and village dispute processing have overemphasized the ideology of harmony and compromise. Similarly, observers of modern courts have accepted too readily the ideology of an impartial third party which imposes judgment according to predetermined legal rules. Both tribal and modern societies have a far more complex, varied set of disputing processes than portrayed in the usual descriptions. Conflict management in tribal societies includes elements of coercive judgment by third parties. In addition, processes in modern societies include dyadic negotiations which have noncoercive, compromise outcomes. Future research should focus on the processes for controlling the definition and the public impact of disputes. Those planning for the reform of tribal and modern forums should understand the similarities of the disputing process in diverse cultural and institutional settings and the common features of the ways in which tribal members and modern strangers use the process. Tables and 11 footnotes are included.