Use it or lose it: Arctic pragmatism requires qualitative knowledge

Arctic diplomacy, business, and science are all highly pragmatic endeavors: they require and foster one’s capacity to engage with difference in a practical manner. Because of such pragmatism, Arctic cooperation has been resilient even when inter-state relations are tense.

But what sustains the pragmatism, especially in challenging geopolitical circumstances? The answer can help us understand how circumpolar cooperation can be reconfigured and rebuilt in the coming years. It can also help us appreciate the ways in which the existing capacities of Arctic networks resonate with America’s national interest in circumpolar cooperation.

This commentary draws on my long-term ethnographic research in diplomatic and Arctic networks to clarify how such collective pragmatism works. Synthesizing participant observation and interviews, I highlight humanistic knowledge as the ingredient that is often overlooked in headline news.

In the Arctic, government officials, businesspeople, scientists, and civic leaders all need to interact beyond their professional and social comfort zones if they are to ensure local buy-in, and thus the long-term viability of projects.

Entering the field with southern assumptions is of little use because those assumptions downplay local conditions and mark the newcomer as an ill-prepared outsider. According to my interviewees, who both spoke  on a non-attributable basis,  those who use their southern talking points, “lecture the people of the Arctic about the Arctic,” propose solutions before they ask questions, or say “outrageously” ignorant things about the region lose social capital. That, in turn, means they lose the capacity to operate in the Arctic. Almost every person with substantial regional experience stresses this.

Because Arctic expertise transcends traditional professional boundaries between, say, physical science and social science or science and diplomacy, technical proficiency in one’s own field is insufficient. One also needs to understand how others see the world. Strengthening Arctic networks after several years of terminated projects and disrupted communication will require qualities like empathy and trust, and these in turn require a nuanced understanding of other people and places. This includes histories, cultures and sensitivities.

Quality knowledge requires qualitative knowledge

Arctic science is typically understood as a “hard” science endeavor of large-scale and resource-heavy projects. The importance of historical and cultural knowledge — things qualitative, individual, and less costly — is understood much less. Yet Arctic governance also requires an increasing amount of awareness of social and cultural dynamics in the circumpolar Arctic.

Scientists increasingly need to grasp the histories and cultures of the places where they work, but they are not trained for this. Cultural knowledge doesn’t come from computer models; it comes from empathetic engagement with actual peoples and places in the circumpolar Arctic. Especially in “anything inter-“, to quote a diplomat from an interview some years ago — in matters international, inter-institutional, or interpersonal — it is qualitative knowledge that builds trust.

As nation-states increase their spending in the Far North, a good understanding of local conditions becomes even more important. Many a well-funded newcomer has found that lacking qualitative knowledge costs them money. Such newcomers, an interviewee comments, start the quest for big returns with a lot of confidence, but then find that they don’t understand the conditions. They don’t know the law (whom they need to consult or even that they need to consult). They don’t know they need local buy-in. They don’t get far. It is not data that these newcomers lack: it’s awareness. And that is a qualitative business.

Practical understanding

The key point here is that humanistic knowledge is practical knowledge; it builds relations and thereby creates the conditions for getting things done. It is often said that business in the Arctic moves with the speed of trust. Business connections require the ability to relate to those who live in the region. The days when business could simply overrule the locals are past, and many businesspeople understand this well. When the investors who lack such understanding run into difficulties, this is not a technical failure but a symptom of their narrow intellectual and imaginative horizon. Broadening that horizon is a qualitative effort.

Humanistic knowledge is a “use it or lose it” business. Because it is irreducibly contextual, it requires continuous engagement. It cannot be neatly measured and its creation is a necessarily slow, small-scale, and individualistic enterprise. The starting point is not information, but disposition.

It is no accident that some of the most capacious and effective operators in Arctic networks have excellent cultural knowledge: they know people and cultures and contexts beyond their states or professions. They have both the technical as well as the cultural and experiential expertise needed to build and sustain partnerships in the region. The latter forms of expertise need to be recognized as a core part of Arctic competencies. They enable Arctic powers to act on shared interests even when they don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues.

It is well known that circumpolar cooperation has been severely strained for several years. However, it is the Arctic where such cooperation — especially cooperation between the U.S. and Russia — was working the longest. It may well be the Arctic where the rebuilding of pragmatic relations will begin. The capacity for pragmatism that still exists within Arctic networks needs to be recognized as the valuable resource that it is.

Humanistic and qualitative knowledge is therefore vital for Arctic governance. It sustains the connective and imaginative capacity of Arctic networks, and it facilitates the pragmatism that makes these networks innovative.

Merje Kuus is Professor of Geography at the University in British Columbia in Vancouver. She is a scholar of Arctic geopolitics and, more broadly, the social lives of expert knowledge inside quasi-diplomatic networks and institutions.