The Enlightenment focus on ‘objective truth’ and the ‘scientific method’ is the wrong tool for a Mediator in any dispute, because: (i) a Mediator is not a ‘fact finder’; and (ii) Mediation is not a ‘Trial.’ The European Enlightenment largely operated on the assumption of a single objective reality that exists independently of human observation. This belief was deeply rooted in the era’s commitment to reason, empiricism, and a mechanistic worldview ‘Post-structuralism’ argues that ‘truth’ is constructed through ‘language’ and ‘power’. In ‘post-structuralism’, ‘truth’ is not a fixed thing waiting to be discovered. It is something that is produced. Words do not just reflect reality. Instead, the way we label and categorise things actually creates our understanding of them. Institutions, including Law, use language to decide what counts as ‘common sense’ or ‘objective truth.’ Therefore, whoever controls the ‘narrative’ controls what society accepts as being ‘true’. It basically moves the ‘goalposts’ from asking – ‘Is this true?’ to asking – ‘Who does this truth benefit’ and ‘how was it built?’ So, if a Mediator treats one participant’s [‘P’s’] story as being ‘fact’; and the other P’s [‘P.2’] as being ‘wrong,’ then they lose neutrality and will alienate P.2. Furthermore, using the ‘scientific method’ or ‘rationality’ as the only valid tool often privileges the person who is most articulate or ‘logical’ by Western standards. This can silence emotional, cultural, or intuitive ways of communicating that are just as vital to resolution of an international Cultural Heritage Dispute. ‘Post-Modernists’ see the claim of ‘rationality’ as a ‘power play’. When a Mediator says – ‘Let’s be rational,’ they are often unconsciously imposing their own set of assumptions on the P’s, rather than allowing them to define their own needs. In a scientific framework, you diagnose and ‘fix’ a problem. In Mediation, the goal is often ‘transformation’. Therefore, focusing on evidence prevents the P’s from exploring the underlying dynamics and values which actually drive the dispute. While rationality can helps build a bridge, using ‘absolutism’ as a tool for reasoning usually just builds a wall. A ‘bridge’, it is about clarity, common ground, and solving problems together. But when ‘absolutism’ is used as a tool for reasoning, it often ignores the ‘irrational’ parts of being human, i.e. emotion, intuition, and nuance, which enable a connection to be made. In other words, by operating on the premise that universal, inflexible rules apply in all situations, ‘absolutism’ ignores crucial, often ‘irrational’ elements such as emotion, intuition, and contextual nuance. That is because P’s do not usually feel heard by a ‘spreadsheet’; they feel heard by a ‘person’.