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’.

Comments added:

• ‘The Mechanistic Worldview in the Enlightenment’ – Figures like Isaac Newton led the charge here, viewing the universe as a giant clock. If it’s a machine, it has fixed rules that don’t care whether a human is looking at them or not.
• ‘Empiricism in the Enlightenment’ – Thinkers like John Locke and Francis Bacon argued that we learn through our senses. The ‘scientific method’ became the tool to filter out human bias and get to that ‘single objective reality.’
• ‘Universalism  in the Enlightenment’ – Because they believed truth was objective, they also believed it was universal, i.e. the same laws of physics or logic should apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times. 
• Modern critiques (like ‘Postmodernism’ or ‘Quantum Mechanics’) often challenge this by suggesting the observer does affect the reality, but for the Enlightenment, the goal was definitely to find the ‘view from nowhere.’
• Ai – ‘Post-structuralism is an intellectual movement that emerged in France during the 1960s as a critique of structuralism. It challenges the idea that language, culture, and social systems have fixed, stable, or universal meanings. Instead of searching for a single “truth” or a deep underlying structure, post-structuralists argue that meaning is fluid, context-dependent, and always subject to change. 
• Core Concepts:
  • Instability of Meaning: Post-structuralists believe there is no direct link between a word (signifier) and its meaning (signified). Meaning is created through a “play” of differences between words, making it impossible to pin down one final, absolute definition.
  • Critique of Binary Oppositions: The movement interrogates common “opposites” in Western thought (e.g., male/female, nature/culture, speech/writing). It argues these are not natural but are hierarchical constructions where one side is unfairly valued over the other.
  • The Death of the Author: Proposed by Roland Barthes, this idea suggests that an author’s intention is not the “correct” way to read a text. Instead, the reader becomes the primary source of meaning, bringing their own context and perspective to every interpretation.
  • Power and Knowledge: Closely associated with Michel Foucault, post-structuralism explores how “truth” is often a product of power relations. It examines how certain discourses (ways of talking and thinking) gain authority and define what is considered “normal” or “true” in society. 
• Key Figures
  • Jacques Derrida: Famous for developing deconstruction, a method for taking apart texts to reveal their internal contradictions and hidden assumptions.
  • Michel Foucault: Focused on the history of systems of thought (like medicine and prisons) and how they exercise power through the production of knowledge.
  • Roland Barthes: Originally a structuralist, he later moved toward post-structuralism by emphasizing the plurality of meanings in texts.
  • Judith Butler: Applied post-structuralist ideas to gender, arguing that gender is a “performance” rather than an inherent essence.
  • Julia Kristeva: Explored how language is disrupted by pre-linguistic drives and social exclusions. 
• Structuralism vs. Post-Structuralism

• While often used interchangeably with Postmodernism, post-structuralism is more specifically a philosophical and linguistic methodology, whereas postmodernism is a broader cultural and historical era.’ 

• In ‘Post-Structuralism’, truth isn’t an objective ‘out there’ reality. Instead, it’s seen as a byproduct of discourse. Thinkers like Michel Foucault argued that those in power use language to define what is considered ‘true’ or ‘normal, effectively creating truth to maintain social structures. Because language is fluid and power shifts, truth is always unstable and evolving rather than fixed.