hon·est bro·ker
/ˈänəst ˈbrōkər/
noun
an impartial mediator in international, industrial, or other disputes.
When you google ‘honest broker’ the definitions that come up look something like the one above. However, the more time I spend reflecting on my position as an early career researcher in the ocean space, the more I believe that this is categorically wrong.
My Journey (Thus Far)
Since beginning my Masters of Marine Management at Dalhousie University, I have been told (in some words or other) that as a marine manager, it would be my job to facilitate, mediate, and resolve conflicts surrounding marine issues. In fact, the more I looked for them, the more I found these buzzwords popping up on the program website, scholarly articles, job postings—you name it.
However, when charged by a professor to reflect on the role that marine managers play as honest brokers, the task saw me spend many an hour at my desk in thought. Looking back on my experiences in this space thus far, I found there were more instances when I questioned whether this term truly described my role, than those that reaffirmed it.
As such, my reflection manifested as more of a critique—not of my institution, professors, or peers, but rather of the notion that this definition somehow encapsulates the multi-faceted and nuanced role we play as marine managers. I would thus dissect it into two parts: impartiality, and the position of an honest broker as a mediator—both of which are inherently intertwined.
The Myth of 'Neutrality'
It is widely documented that impartiality is virtually impossible. According to Izard (2007), there is “no such thing as an affectless mind; affect or emotion is always present” (p. 270). In layman’s terms, we as practitioners and researchers are always feeling something about something. Thus, instead of describing the honest broker as an impartial being, I propose that we focus on our partiality. When we enter a space, I argue that it is far more important to recognize and reflect upon the assumptions we bring to the ‘table’ (be it a physical or metaphorical one), rather than try (and fail) to check our positionality at the door and operate as if we have done so successfully.
I often find myself falling into the trap of feeling as though I can approach my work as a ‘blank slate’, able to fit into any space. When, in actuality, as a biracial, woman in science, I bring with me my own set of skills and experiences that cannot be consciously removed from who I am or how I operate. Moreover, although I can empathize with marginalized communities, my experiences may not be the same as others’, and do not make me the right person to speak up in all situations. As such, my identity is not something I need to leave behind, but rather a lens to view discourses and evaluate when and where my voice is needed.
Stepping In?
Along this same vein, I argue that, in contrast to its definition, our ‘status’ as honest brokers does not, by default, make us the best individuals to mediate all conflicts. Regardless of our intentions, entering a space with this entitlement can lead to soiled relationships and critical misunderstandings. This notion is inherently based upon our positionality. For example, I myself am not the best person to mediate First Nation-to-First Nation relations—I am not of Indigenous descent and do not have the extensive knowledge to do so in an effective and truly respectful manner. This is not to say that there is no place for me at this ‘table’, but rather that I should not be the first (or the second) to take a seat. I believe that in a situation like this, there is more to gain from taking lead from others than being the first to speak up.
With this in mind, the question of what role an honest broker plays in marine management requires careful consideration of the context in which we operate. I propose that, before assuming any role, we should ask ourselves questions like: would the situation be bettered by my input? Or is there someone better suited to fill this space? This provides an avenue to better evaluate the extent to which I, as an honest broker, am needed at all. The honest broker may better be defined as a listener and learner first. Doing so can enhance our own growth, but more importantly, better serve the individuals we collaborate with.
Final Thoughts
As I write this, such an introspective reflection sounds like a difficult and time-consuming feat. And it is—that is the entire point. I would argue that recognizing this is the first step to understanding how our identities can empower us to reflect upon when and where our voices can best serve the conflicts we face. If we are truly honest brokers, we should be honest with ourselves that the definition of this role may not be fully aligned with how we should conduct ourselves in practice. In a time when we face increasingly difficult decisions in the ocean space, I believe it is truly worth the time to re-evaluate who we are and how we operate. Perhaps we may come to find that being an honest broker is not all it is defined to be.
コメント