‘Cultural Imperialism in Mediation.’

Posted on by

Cultural Imperialism in the Mediation of a Cultural Heritage Dispute, occurs when dominant ‘Western frameworks’, ‘values’, and ‘legal norms’ are imposed on indigenous or non-Western parties, often perpetuating ‘colonial-era’ power imbalances under the guise of neutral dispute resolution. While Mediation is intended to be a collaborative process, it can become a mechanism for maintaining ‘hegemony’ when the Mediator (‘M’), process, or desired outcome privileges Western concepts of ownership, stewardship, and ‘universal’ art history over the intangible, spiritual, or community-based connection to cultural objects. As I will discuss in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, this is manifest in ‘Orientalism.’ Western institutions often argue they are the best guardians of heritage, framing restitution as a loss to humanity, which minimizes the cultural, spiritual, and educational significance of the artifacts to their origin communities. Mediation may focus heavily on legal technicalities, such as statutes of limitations or the legality of acquisition at the time of removal, ignoring the unethical, coercive, or violent nature of colonial looting. The holding institutions (usually in Western nations) often possess far superior financial resources, legal counsel, and time, putting the source community or country at a disadvantage. Standard Mediation techniques may not suit collective cultures. The pressure to reach a ‘win-win’ settlement can obscure the fundamental injustice of the initial theft and coerce the weaker party into accepting a compromise (e.g., long-term loan) rather than full restitution. M’s may fail to recognize that the Participants (‘P’s’) are operating under different assumptions about the value of the artefact, turning the negotiation into an exercise where one P must adopt the other’s worldview to be heard. Cultural Imperialism can lead to decisions where the original owner is forced to accept ‘shared stewardship’ or symbolic gestures, rather than the unconditional return of items. Mediation may fail to account for the ongoing harm caused by the absence of sacred items, prioritizing the physical preservation of the object over its role in living cultural traditions. The process can reinforce the idea that source communities are ‘not yet ready’ to curate their own heritage, validating the ‘civilizing’ mission of colonial collectors. To avoid Cultural Imperialism, M’s, P’s and other stakeholders, are urged to: 1. Acknowledge Power Imbalances. 2. Explicitly address historical and systemic inequities. 3. Focus on returning artefacts to their source, rather than just long-term loans, which keeps ownership in the hands of the colonial power. 4. Utilize traditional dispute resolution mechanisms alongside Western legal models. 5. Focus on the ethics of retention and the ‘living’ nature of the Cultural Heritage, rather than simply legal ownership.

‘Is Sacred Geometry encoded in the design of the ancient stone vases discovered underneath the Pyramid at Saqqara?’

Posted on by

AI – ‘Recent independent analyses of the thousands of stone vases discovered beneath the Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara suggest that they exhibit advanced, purposeful, and possibly “sacred” geometry. These artifacts—numbering over 40,000 and carved from hard stones like granite, diorite, and schist—display levels of symmetry, precise wall thickness, and mathematical ratios (such as \(\pi \) and \(\phi \)) that have led some researchers to suggest they were produced using advanced, lost technology rather than simple copper tools. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Findings Regarding Geometry

  • Mathematical Precision: The vases exhibit “absolute symmetry” and consistent wall thickness (sometimes measured in microns).
  • Encoded Ratios: Analyses suggest the intentional encoding of \(\pi \) and the golden ratio (\(\phi \)) in the design proportions.
  • “Flower of Life” Blueprint: Some investigators argue the shapes follow a dual Flower of Life pattern, a key element of sacred geometry, featuring radial,, flower-like, or “golden circle” patterns that are more typically associated with advanced, computer-guided fabrication.
  • Impossible Craftsmanship: Researchers, such as those working with UnchartedX, note that the precision of these vessels—particularly the sharp internal angles in hard rock—defies modern replication methods. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Background and Context

  • The Collection: The over 40,000 vases, many broken, were discovered under the Step Pyramid and are believed to date back to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BCE) or earlier.
  • Rediscovery or Inheritance: It is believed that Pharaoh Djoser, who built the Step Pyramid, collected these vases from earlier, potentially pre-dynastic or even pre-ice age, civilizations, preserving them in his burial complex.
  • “Alternative” Technology Theory: Proponents of this view argue that the uniformity of the carvings implies the use of a mechanically guided lathe—a technology not known to exist during the early Dynastic period. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Mainstream Archaeology Context
While mainstream archaeology recognizes the extreme skill of Early Dynastic artisans, they generally attribute these vessels to labor-intensive techniques—such as the use of copper tools, abrasives (like sand), and manual turning. However, the sheer volume of hard-stone artifacts and their high precision continue to raise questions that challenge conventional timelines of technical development.’

See also:

·         Incredible Precision Stone Jars, and other unsolved mysteries of Saqqara!: Incredible Precision Stone Jars, and other unsolved mysteries of Saqqara!

‘Are we free to condemn the destruction of Cultural Heritage by a foreign state?’

Posted on by

Google AI (03.05.2026) – ‘Yes, under English law, you have the right to publicly condemn and protest against the destruction of Cultural Heritage, as these actions are protected by fundamental human rights.

While the law does not grant a specific “entitlement” based on the subject of the protest (such as International Humanitarian Law [‘IHL’]), your general rights to freedom of expression and assembly apply.

Your right to protest is primarily protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law.

Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) protects your right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, including public condemnation of a foreign state’s actions.

Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly and Association) protects your right to gather with others for peaceful demonstrations and meetings.

These rights are “qualified,” meaning the state can restrict them if it is necessary for specific reasons like public safety or preventing disorder.

Recent legislation has expanded these powers.

Under the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the 2022 and 2023 Acts), senior police officers can set conditions on the route, duration, or noise level of a protest if they believe it may cause “serious disruption”.

Protesting against a foreign state’s breach of IHL is a form of political expression that the courts generally recognise as having high value in a democracy.’

In the frequently quoted words of the 1954 Hague Convention, cultural property is ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’

In other words, Cultural Heritage is part of our shared humanity.

Therefore, we all share a common interest in preserving and protecting Cultural Heritage everywhere.

Cultural Heritage is entwined with UNESCO’s broader mandate concerning human rights, the rule of law, development, and peace.

‘Cultural identity’ is considered to part of ‘human dignity’.

It is linked to human rights because Cultural Heritage is of crucial importance to individuals and communities as part of their ‘identity’.

Thus, a foreign state which e.g. as an ‘occupier’, intentionally destroys ancient Cultural Heritage has committed/is committing – ‘ideological’ warfare against ‘civilization’ itself.

The UK officially recognises that the deliberate destruction of Cultural Heritage can constitute a War Crime under International Law.

The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 implemented the 1954 Hague Convention, making it a domestic offence for UK nationals or residents to commit serious breaches of the Convention abroad.

These people can and should be investigated by the Police.

However, as far as I am aware, there has not been a single prosecution of any former member of the IDF who has returned to the UK – who while serving in the IDF may have been/was involved in ‘War Crimes’ – i.e. ‘atrocities’.

Why?

Comments added:

‘The Vitruvian Triad – Strength, Utility, and Beauty.’

Posted on by

AI – ‘The Vitruvian Triad refers to the three core principles of good architecture defined by the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius in his treatise De Architectura. He argued that all successful buildings must satisfy three essential conditions: Strength, Utility, and Beauty. [1, 2, 3, 4]

These principles, often cited by their Latin names, remain foundational to architectural theory today: [1, 2]

  • Firmitas (Strength/Durability): A building must be structurally sound and able to withstand the elements and time. It should remain in excellent condition for an extended period.
  • Utilitas (Utility/Functionality): A building must be useful and beneficial to its residents or users. It should appropriately respond to the needs and space requirements of its intended occupants.
  • Venustas (Beauty/Aesthetics): A building should be attractive, appealing, and raise the spirits of those who see it. This includes harmony, proportion, and craftsmanship that creates “delight”.

Historical Context and InfluenceIn the 17th century, Sir Henry Wotton famously translated these terms into the “great slogan” of architecture: “Firmness, Commodity, and Delight”.

The triad is so influential that:

  • It is listed on the reverse side of the Pritzker Architecture Prize medal.
  • It serves as the conceptual basis for Leonardo da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man”, which links architectural proportions to the ideal symmetry of the human body.
  • Modern designers often adapt these pillars to digital fields, such as Web Design or UX, mapping them to reliability, usability, and delight. …

In the architecture of antiquity, “delight” (Latin: venustas) was the aesthetic quality of a building that inspired joy and visual pleasure. According to the Roman architect Vitruvius, delight was achieved when a structure’s appearance was pleasing and in good taste, specifically through the integration of harmony, proportion, and craftsmanship. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1. Harmony (Symmetria) [1, 2]Harmony was used to unify all parts of a building so they related logically to each other and to the whole structure. [1, 2]

  • Balance & Symmetry: Architects used symmetrical balance—where elements on either side of a central axis were identical—to convey order and stability, as seen in the Parthenon in Athens.
  • Contextual Unity: Harmony also involved the building’s relationship with its surroundings. Greek temples were often conceived as sculptural entities within the landscape, raised on high ground to supplement the natural topography rather than impose upon it. [1, 2, 3]

2. Proportion (Analogia)Proportion was the mathematical foundation of beauty, ensuring every element was strictly and relationally proportional to every other part. [1]

  • The Human Scale: Ancient architects based their rules of proportion on the human body. For example, the Doric order was considered “masculine” with a height-to-diameter ratio of 1:8, while the Ionic order was seen as “feminine” and more slender at 1:9.
  • Mathematical Ratios: Principles like the Golden Ratio (approx. 1.618) were used to determine the ideal dimensions of rooms, facades, and the spacing of columns to create a sense of visual equilibrium.
  • Optical Corrections: Architects applied “entasis” (a slight curve in columns) and upward curves in temple foundations to correct optical illusions that would otherwise make straight lines appear to sag, ensuring the final result looked “perfect” to the eye. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

3. Craftsmanship (Refinement)Craftsmanship translated abstract mathematical ideals into tangible objects of delight through meticulous detail and execution. [1, 2]

  • Material Integrity: The transition from wood to stone construction required masons to dutifully copy wooden details—like triglyphs and beams—into stone, creating a familiar, elaborate grammar of architectural elements.
  • Intricate Detailing: Even in massive temples, intricate detailing of the classical orders ensured that elements remained comprehensible on a human scale.
  • Symbolic Ornament: Craftsmanship wasn’t just about utility; it was about using sculpture and surface effects to attract and “arouse a feeling of love” or joy in the viewer, much like the Greek word for statue (agalma) means “to give joy”. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]’

From where and how, did these ‘mathematical ideals’ originate?

‘The historical concept of Convivencia – living together.’

Posted on by

‘Convivencia’ refers to the period in the medieval Iberian Peninsula (c. 711–1492) when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in close proximity under Muslim-ruled Al-Andalus and later under expanding Christian kingdoms.

The term was famously coined by the Spanish philologist Américo Castro in his 1948 work, España en su historia, to argue that Spanish national identity was uniquely forged through the cultural blending of these three religious groups.

This era is often cited as a ‘Golden Age’ of cross-cultural exchange.

Scholars from all three faiths collaborated in translating ancient Greek texts, leading to major advancements in philosophy, medicine, astronomy, and mathematics.

Buildings like the Great Mosque of Córdoba and the Alhambra in Granada exhibit a blend of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish artistic influences.

Under Muslim rule, Jews and Christians were granted Dhimmi (protected) status. While they were required to pay a special tax called jizyah, they were allowed to practice their religion and maintain their own legal systems.

Modern historians debate whether convivencia was a true state of ‘religious tolerance’ or merely a pragmatic necessity.

Proponents like María Rosa Menocal in ‘The Ornament of the World’ portray it as an ‘interfaith utopia’ where pluralism was a core social value.

Other scholars argue it was a ‘stabilised pluralism’ driven by economic and political necessity rather than mutual affection.

Critics such as Darío Fernández-Morera suggest the concept has been politicised as a ‘myth’ of multiculturalism to serve contemporary agendas.

The era effectively ended in 1492 with the fall of Granada and the Alhambra Decree, which led to the expulsion or forced conversion of Jews and Muslims in Spain.

I believe the era of the ‘Convivencia’ proves that peaceful and constructive co-existence is possible in a multi-cultural society.

For me, the ‘Convivencia’ was a ‘Golden Age’ in the history of Civilization.

The challenge for all politicians is how institutionally, to create a legal, social and political foundation for what Mediators facilitate all the time – a ‘dialogue of peaceful and constructive co-existence’.

Proscribing/banning freedom of speech and public protest about injustice and oppression, e.g. War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity – including the deliberate destruction of Cultural Heritage, not only closes down the dialogue, it is also the road of the extreme right wing to ‘Fascism’.

What I am seeing across the Atlantic and in the UK, is a destructive politics of ‘hatred’ and ‘division’, which is serving the interests of a small and wealthy elite who are bound together by a shared right wing ‘religious’ and ‘colonial’ ideology which manifests itself in ‘hegemony’.

History teaches us that this can only lead to endless wars and revolution.

Comments added:

  • Have you also noticed that the elite who are bound together by a shared right wing ‘religious’ and ‘colonial’ ideology like to blow-up i.e. destroy ancient monuments which form part of the tangible cultural heritage of the victims of their colonialism? Have you ever asked yourself why they do this? What do you think the answer is?
  • See also – https://www.amazon.co.uk/If-Tolerate-This-establishment-respectable/dp/1037411579

    ‘The far right is now mainstream in British politics. If We Tolerate This is a short, gripping and essential book on how we got here, and what we can do about it.

    In 2025 we saw the biggest far-right rally in Britain’s history, after a summer of flag-waving protests. The year before, racist mobs tried to attack mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers.

    Something incredibly dangerous has been unleashed, yet our political class seems at best indifferent and at worst to welcome it.

    In this urgent and riveting book, Daniel Trilling explains how we arrived at this extraordinary moment and what we can do to change course before it’s too late.

    Praise for Daniel Trilling:

    ‘Racism and the rise of the far right in Britain are often discussed but rarely understood. Daniel Trilling is an exception . . . his voice must be heard’ – Owen Jones, author of Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class

    ‘Combining forensic enquiry with moral passion, Daniel Trilling has emerged as one of our most intrepid and resourceful reporters’ – Pankaj Mishra, Windham-Campbell Prize-winning author of The World After Gaza’ (Amazon Books).
  • See also – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuZ-kjOecf4
  • See also – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9jgwP61-98
  • See also – ‘The scale of Islamophobia against Muslims is really frightening” | Peter Oborne | Real Talk/ Middle East Eye’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18M1SktF_gE
  • This post is written solely in my capacity as a graduate of one of the UK’s top schools of Political Science, and not in any capacity as a legal practitioner or mediator. I predicted the rise of the far right in the UK as far back as 2016. I predicted that this would also happen in the US and in France, Germany and Italy – which is exactly what is happening today.
  • Unsafe to be Christian in Jerusalem: Fear, harassment and empty holy sites | Oborne Unscripted: Unsafe to be Christian in Jerusalem: Fear, harassment and empty holy sites | Oborne Unscripted
  • Not just Iran, ‘Israel would kill millions of people’ | Rabbi Elhanan Beck | UNAPOLOGETIC: Not just Iran, ‘Israel would kill millions of people’ | Rabbi Elhanan Beck | UNAPOLOGETIC
  • We went undercover to EXPOSE Israeli settlers: We went undercover to EXPOSE Israeli settlers
  • ‘The destruction of heritage, and prohibition of cultural behaviours are used by certain conflict actors as “shaping operations”, where violence against the “Other” becomes normalised as communities, either incrementally or at once, lose their property, freedoms, and humanity. Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places. Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want. Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction: genocide.’ (Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge, p.301 – These are the words of Colonel Stone).

    Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:
    1.  the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
    2.  Ethnic Cleansing; and
    3.  Genocide.
  • Israel’s cultural annihilation of Gaza | The Listening Post: Penny Drop City 10 Youtube
  • How Israel is destroying Palestinian cultural heritage:How Israel is destroying Palestinian cultural heritage
  • Damage to Iranian cultural heritage sites: Interview with Professor Sussan Babaie: Damage to Iranian cultural heritage sites: Interview with Professor Sussan Babaie

‘Since the start of the war in Iran, over 130 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed by US-Israeli strikes. In an interview with Professor Sussan Babaie, expert in the arts of Iran and Islam, Dr Margaret Squires asks: what damage has been caused to Iranian cultural heritage sites, and what is the significance of this?’

‘What happens when you apply Alasdair MacIntyre’s framework in “After Virtue” to the Mediation of a Cultural Heritage Dispute?’

Posted on by

It shifts the focus from a clash of rigid ‘rights’ to a collaborative search for ‘goods’ within a shared practice. Mediator (‘M’) Tools using MacIntyre’s framework include: (1) ‘Moving Beyond Emotivism’ – MacIntyre argues that modern moral debates are often just expressions of personal preference (‘Emotivism’), leading to endless stalemates. M can help the Participants (‘P’s’) to see that arguing over abstract ‘rights’ or ‘ownership’ is a dead end. Instead, M can encourage the P’s to stop using ‘moral language’ as a weapon, and to start discussing the specific historical context of the artefact in dispute. (2) ‘Identifying the Internal Goods – In MacIntyre’s view, every practice, like archaeology, curation, or religious worship, has ‘internal goods’ that can only be achieved by participating in the practice. So, M can ask the P’s – ‘What is the best way for this artefact to fulfil its purpose?’ If the ‘good’ of e.g. an ancient statue, is its role in a living ritual, then a museum might agree that ‘external goods’, e.g. prestige and ticket sales, are secondary to that internal ‘spiritual good’. (3) ‘Locating the Narrative Unity’ – MacIntyre believes that individuals and objects only make sense within a story. So, instead of seeing a dispute as being a ‘snapshot in time’, M can frame the artefact as being part of a continuous and living narrative. This allows each P to see themselves as characters in the same story – one seeking to preserve; and the other to reclaim, and together they can then work toward a ‘chapter’ that honours both histories. (4) ‘Cultivating the Virtues’ – MacIntyre emphasizes virtues like justice, courage, and honesty, which are necessary to sustain any practice. M can model these virtues to create an environment of ‘moral apprenticeship.’ By requiring honesty about how an artefact was acquired, and courage to admit ‘historical wrongs’, M can transform the negotiation from being a ‘legal battle’, into a ‘virtuous dialogue’. (5) ‘Embracing Tradition’ – For MacIntyre, traditions are ‘extended arguments’ over time. So, M can ‘reframe’ the dispute as being a healthy part of the cultural tradition’s evolution, rather than as a ‘breach’ to be fixed. This may justify a creative ‘hybrid’ solution, e.g. ‘shared stewardship’ or ‘digital repatriation’, which respects the tradition of both the source community and of the Museum.

Comments added:

AI – ‘In his seminal work After Virtue (1981), Alasdair MacIntyre presents a framework that diagnoses modern moral discourse as a “state of disorder”. He argues that the Enlightenment’s rejection of teleology—the idea that human life has a specific end or purpose—stripped moral language of the context that made it coherent. 

To resolve this, he proposes a refashioned Aristotelian framework centered on three interlocking concepts: Social Practices, Narrative Unity, and Traditions. 

Diagnosis: The Failure of the Enlightenment Project MacIntyre contends that modern morality is composed of “conceptual fragments” from past traditions. 

Emotivism: He argues we now live in an “emotivist” culture where moral judgments are treated as mere expressions of personal preference or attitude rather than objective truths.

The Teleological Gap: In pre-modern ethics (Aristotelian/Christian), morality was a bridge between “man-as-he-happens-to-be” and “man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realized-his-telos”. The Enlightenment kept the rules but discarded the telos (end goal), making the rules seem arbitrary and unresolvable.

Nietzsche vs. Aristotle: MacIntyre frames the ultimate choice for modern man as either following Friedrich Nietzsche into moral nihilism or returning to an Aristotelian tradition of virtue. Wikipedia +6

2. The Solution: A Three-Part Moral FrameworkMacIntyre reconstructs the concept of virtue by grounding it in a sociological and historical structure: 

Social Practices: A Practice is any complex, socially established cooperative activity (like medicine, chess, or farming).

Internal Goods: These are achievements unique to the activity that can only be reached by following its standards of excellence.

The Role of Virtue: Virtues are the qualities (like courage, justice, and honesty) necessary to achieve these internal goods.

Narrative Unity of a Human Life: MacIntyre argues that virtues cannot exist in isolation; they must be situated within the Narrative Unity of an individual’s life. We understand our actions as part of a story with a beginning, middle, and end, striving toward a “good life”.

Moral Traditions: Individual narratives and practices are further embedded in Traditions, which MacIntyre defines as “historically extended, socially embodied arguments”. A tradition provides the shared standards and history that allow moral inquiry to be rational rather than arbitrary. 

3. Social and Political Implications

  • Critique of Bureaucratic Management: He attacks the modern belief in “managerial expertise,” calling it a fiction used to manipulate others in a world that has lost shared moral ends.
  • Local Communities: MacIntyre concludes that the modern nation-state is incapable of fostering a true moral community. He famously ends the book by suggesting we are waiting for “another St. Benedict”—small, local communities that can preserve the moral life through the “new dark ages” of modernity.’

‘Why do you need to enquire about a Mediator’s Philosophy before appointing them?’

Posted on by

A Mediator’s (‘M’s’) Philosophy fundamentally shapes how they manage a dispute, influencing everything from the structure of the meetings to the ultimate goal of the session. This orientation determines whether they act as a neutral guide focusing on communication or an expert advisor pushing for a specific legal settlement. The impact of M’s Philosophy generally falls into several primary categories: (1) ‘Primary Focus and Desired Outcomes’ – Depending on their underlying beliefs about the purpose of Mediation, M will prioritize different results: – A ‘Problem-Solving Philosophy’ focuses on reaching a substantive, mutually agreeable settlement to the immediate dispute. – A ‘Relational/Transformative Philosophy’ prioritizes empowering the Participants (‘P’s’) and helping them recognize each other’s needs to heal or shift their relationship. – A ‘Legal/Evaluative Philosophy’ aims for a quick deal based on legal rights and likely court outcomes. – A ‘Cultural Philosophy’ – which varies by tradition; for example, Western approaches often prioritize ‘getting a deal done,’ whereas Asian approaches may prioritize maintaining social harmony. (2) ‘Decision-Making and Autonomy’ – Philosophy dictates who holds the power to shape the final agreement: – ‘Party Self-Determination’ – M’s who believe parties are best equipped to make their own life decisions will strictly avoid offering advice or opinions, leaving all choices to the P’s. – ‘Mediator Influence’ – Those with an Evaluative Philosophy take a more active role, pointing out case weaknesses and making formal recommendations on what a fair outcome looks like. (3) ‘Communication Style and Techniques’ – M’s philosophy changes how they interact with the P’s during sessions: – A ‘Facilitative’ style uses open-ended Socratic questioning to help P’s explore their own interests and find ‘practical truth’. – A ‘Narrative’ style focuses on helping P’s rewrite their ‘conflict story’ into a more constructive alternative narrative. – An ‘Existential’ style adresses subtle emotional stressors like fear of freedom or uncertainty to break a party’s fixation on litigation. (4) ‘Process Structure’ – The physical and procedural setup is also a reflection of M’s Philosophy: – Facilitative and Transformative Mediators often prefer joint sessions so that the P’s can hear each other directly. – Evaluative Mediators frequently use shuttle diplomacy, meeting separately with each P and their legal representatives to evaluate legal positions. – Some Mediation Philosophies view emotions as noise to be managed in order to avoid settlement from being dertailed, while others see them as core data essential for a ‘transformative’ experience. So. before appointing a Mediator the P’s need to enquire about M’s Philosophy, becuase that will determine his/her approach to the entire process.

‘How can a Mediator resolve an Epistemological Crisis?’

Posted on by

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.