What’s with “the human element”?
There’s no escaping the catchword “the human element” in shipping. It’s become as ubiquitous as “sustainable shipping” – and necessarily so. Despite the advances in technology, maritime accidents continue to take a heavy toll on life and limb, not to speak of the environment. Time to shift the focus to “the human element” in the man-machine equation. Still and all, I don’t feel comfortable with the phrase and the reason has nothing to do with the usefulness of it.
Then IMO Secretary-General W.A. O’Neil summed it up well on 29th June 2001. Speaking at the Biennial Symposium of the Seafarers International Research Centre in Cardiff, he said: “People remain a basic component with all their strengths and weaknesses which can both cause a disaster or prevent it. Our task is to sort out the issues and to build on the strengths and correct the weaknesses. If, as is frequently stated, all marine casualties and incidents involve human factors in one way or another, then our starting point is quite clear.”
Who can argue with that? My objection to the term “the human element” has to do with sentiment: it sounds too cold and reminds me of the periodic table of elements invented by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev. No doubt, it has practical value. But in an industry where seafarers are often treated as commodities, the phrase is unfortunate. I wonder how seafarers themselves feel about being called “the human element”. I remember the words of Shylock, the merchant Jew, in Shakespeare’s immortal play, The Merchant of Venice:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
But how many care about sentiment in the world of maritime business?
Fantastic piece of writing. Wonder what price would shipping pay when the human element is shove aside, neglected and abused?
But frankly, does nomenclature matter? Would that change the way seafarers (are) treated? I look forward to your next article.
I think the term – and another one is ‘the human factor’ – is intended to replace ‘human error’ – which implies fault of an individual. Human Element goes beyond the seafarer – it would include the accountant who decided to save money by not putting O2 metres aboard ships, the ship designer who vented cargo spaces into the vessel corridors, the management which implements impracticable ‘safety’ procedures, and so on.
In its broad sense, “the human element” embraces all those involved in the safe navigation of ships. But anyone who cares to look back at how IMO and The Nautical Institute have been using the term will realise that the focus is primarily on seafarers. Which makes sense. Why hold the poor office accountant accountable for the Master’s errors that led to the grounding of the Costa Concordia?
Thank you for raising this point. In my opinion it is of the utmost importance to realize that the front line of shipping is the seafarer. He deserves to be thought of and treated as such.
Right on course Ken! The maritime agencies here treat seamen (sorry have not gotten out of the old school that we studied seamanship not “seafarership”) as milking cows. At times even brothers in the profession are guilty too.
As long as we do not have aliens onboard it will be the “Human Error, “Human Mistake”, “Human Factor”, “Human Element”. We (Humans) invent the machines, we design them, we install them, we program them, and we use them. We employ humans, we train them. We create procedures, we create rules and we make accidents. That’s how we are. We are HUMANS.