A Mediator (‘M’) can help resolve an Epistemological Crisis (‘EC’) – i.e. when Participants (‘P’s) cannot agree about what is ‘true’, by shifting the focus upon ‘facts, to a collaborative exploration of underlying interests and shared procedural standards.

Unlike a judge who adjudicates upon the P’s rights, M can use specific techniques to bridge the gap between the P’s ‘conflicting realities’, i.e. their ‘narratives’.

In ‘Whose Justice? Which Rationality?’ (1988), Alasdair MacIntyre argues that ‘rationality’ is rooted in specific traditions, challenging Mediators to abandon the quest for a neutral, ‘universal ground’ in favour of navigating conflicting, tradition-bound perspectives.

M can use an EC as a catalyst for change by shifting the ‘focus’ from ‘what is true’, to how each P ‘constructs their own subjective truth’.

Mediator Tools include:

1. ‘Challenging Naïve Realism’ – M can help each P to recognize that their ‘common sense’ is often a ‘fallible’ interpretation rather than a direct reflection of ‘reality’.

2. ‘Neutral Education’ – M may neutrally explain the existence of ‘cognitive biases’ or ‘System 1′ fast-thinking errors, which can correct biased thinking and encourage more deliberate, ‘System 2’ reasoning.

3. ‘Encouraging Epistemic Humility’ – By highlighting that truth is often perceived through subjective ‘webs of belief,’ M can encourage each P to view their own claims as being ‘fallible’ rather than as being universal ‘absolute truths’.

4. ‘Slowing down the thinking process’ – EC’s often trigger high-intensity emotions that lead to rapid, biased decision-making.

M can slow down the thinking process by:

(a) ‘Asking Open-Ended Questions’ – This forces the P’s to use ‘analytical reasoning’.

(b) ‘Strategic Breaks’ – Implementation of ‘cooling-off’ periods of at least 20 minutes, i.e. to help release a P from the powerful grasp of a stormy emotional state caused by ‘biased’ thinking.

These Mediator Tools will be discussed in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, see www.carlislam.co.uk

Comments added:

An Interntional Cultural Heritage Dispute is an ‘Epistemological’ dispute, because it is not just a fight over who owns an object, but a fight over how we know what that artefact is and what it means.

At its core, ‘Epistemology’ is the study of knowledge, i.e. of how we determine what is ‘true’ or ‘valid.’

In Cultural Heritage Disputes, the Participants (‘P’s’) use different ways of knowing to claim authority: 

(i) ‘Scientific v. Traditional Knowledge’ – A museum might claim an artifact is a ‘specimen’ to be studied via carbon dating and DNA (Western empirical knowledge). A source community might claim it is a ‘living ancestor’ or a sacred being (ancestral/spiritual knowledge). Both sides are using different frameworks to define the object’s reality.

(ii) ‘Authority and Expertise’ – These disputes ask – Who has the right to produce knowledge about this item? 

When a colonial institution categorises an indigenous object, they are asserting that their academic classification is more ‘true’ than the community’s oral history.

(iii) ‘The Meaning of Tr’ – If a Greek statue is seen by one person as ‘universal art’ (Enlightenment value) and by another as a ‘national soul’ (cultural identity), they aren’t just disagreeing on its location—they are disagreeing on its fundamental nature. 

In short, it’s a conflict between different systems of truth.

Comments added:

For a mediator, Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue offers a philosophical framework to move beyond seeing conflict as merely a clash of individual interests. His work suggests that mediation can be a space where ‘incommensurable'” moral languages are translated and where virtues are recovered through shared ‘practices’ and ‘narratives.’ 

Here is what a mediator can learn from the philosophy of After Virtue:

1. Understanding ‘Emotivism’ in Conflict

MacIntyre argues that modern moral discourse is in a state of ‘disorder’ where people use moral terms (like ‘justice’ or ‘rights’) as if they were objective, but actually use them only to express personal feelings or to manipulate others. 

• Mediators often encounter parties who seem to be speaking different languages even when using the same words. MacIntyre suggests this isn’t just a communication breakdown, but a result of emotivism—the belief that moral claims are nothing more than expressions of preference. Recognizing this helps a mediator understand why rational argument often fails to resolve deep-seated ethical disputes. 

2. Mediation as a ‘Practice’

MacIntyre defines a practice as a cooperative human activity where “internal goods” (excellences specific to that activity) are realized. 

• The Lesson: Mediation itself can be viewed as a practice. To be a ‘good’ mediator is not just about following a set of rules (external goods like money or status), but about cultivating virtues like justice, courage, and honesty that are internal to the process of conflict resolution. The mediator’s goal is to help parties engage in their own shared practices (like parenting or running a business) more virtuously. 

3. Narrative Unity and Life Stories

One of MacIntyre’s most famous concepts is that human life has a narrative unity. We are ‘storytelling animals’ who can only understand our actions within the context of our life’s story. 

• The Lesson: Conflict often arises when someone’s “narrative” is interrupted or challenged. A mediator can learn to look for the underlying story each party is living out. By helping parties see themselves as characters in an unfolding narrative—rather than just “sovereign choosers” making isolated decisions—a mediator can find more meaningful paths toward resolution. 

4. Navigating ‘Incommensurability’

MacIntyre identifies that modern arguments are often incommensurable, meaning there is no neutral third standard to judge between them (e.g., an argument based on ‘rights’ vs. one based on ‘utility’). 

• The Lesson: Instead of trying to find a ‘perfect’ rational compromise that satisfies both sides’ abstract principles, MacIntyre’s philosophy suggests focusing on local, communal traditions. A mediator can look for the shared ‘tradition’ or ‘community’ the parties belong to, which might provide the shared moral vocabulary they currently lack in the abstract. 

5. Moving Toward ‘Phronesis’ (Practical Wisdom)

MacIntyre champions the Aristotelian idea of phronesis, or practical wisdom—the ability to apply general virtues to specific, messy situations. 

• The Lesson: Mediation is the ultimate arena for phronesis. It requires the mediator to move away from rigid checklists and toward a “virtue ethic” where the right course of action is determined by the specific needs of the parties and the unique context of their conflict.