The foundation for an ethic starts with a consideration of Power and Technique (Ellul).
Well before one can articulate any idea of virtues (https://safetyrisk.net/ten-virtues-for-a-positive-safety-culture/) or vices, one needs to be clear about a founding philosophy (methodology). Tinkering about the edges by naming a few virtues without tackling the underlying ethic of the system, is just cosmetics.
What one thinks about Power, Systems and Technique, determines the virtues one selects and omits.
At the foundation of any ethic ought to be a clear articulation of belief about the nature of Power and Technique. Technique is not to be confused with technology (https://ellul.org/themes/ellul-and-technique/) but rather is the ideology of total efficiency. It is italicised to represent it as an Archetype that takes on a life (energy) of its own.
Technique works in the unconscious space so that no-one realises that it drives decision making and behaviour, without being conscious of its energy. The opposite of Technique is: inefficiency, deemed misuse of time, lack of productivity, non-rational being, faith, paradox, metaphysics, transcendence, ecological being, non-growth, fallibility, mortality, deemed waste, randomness, risk, Nature and Poetics (all that is non-measurable)
In SPoR, the fundamental Ethic is one of non-power. This doesn’t mean powerlessness but rather the ability to resist what one could do. An Ethic of non-power resists the ideology of efficiency. It places the meaning of personhood at the foundation of relations, NOT Technique. In social organising in SPoR, efficiency is NOT the driver of relations. In an Ethic of non-power, one always considers what will happen to the ‘other’.
An Ethic of non-power then understands limits as positive and beneficial for persons. In an Ethic of non-power, one has a focus on what are the by-products of actions for persons and communities and, resists actions that demonise persons. An Ethic of non-power is an orientation (how we face) towards persons and communities that understands the ability to set limits as freedom. That is, the power to not do (See Ellul: To Will and To Do ).
If one follows the ideology/Archetype of Technique with choice within the system, there is no freedom. Licence is not freedom. Permission and capability to do, is not freedom.
Fundamentally, Technique alienates humans from themselves so that the guiding energy of Technique organises outcomes. Indeed, Technique organises in its quest to quash fallibility. Fallibility is understood as the enemy of efficiency. The ultimate in Technique is measurement.
So, freedom is only known within the ability to set limits in the acceptance of fallibility as a blessing. In the dialectic of freedom, one knows and understands tensions, conflict, limits, dialectic and movement in learning as humanising.
The push for perfection (zero) and the reduction of risk through Technique is the rejection of the necessity of fallibility and learning.
In a system energised by Technique, Care is inefficient. This is why care, power, zero and personhood get no mention in the AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics not in any traditional safety like HOP or Safety non-differently. This is why the language of HOP and SD is ‘capacity’ and ‘performance’.
The paradox is this: the quest for total safety (zero) or what Amalberti and Taleb call ‘hyper-safety’, is the quest of technique against the inefficiencies of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/). This is why the transhumanists like Elon Musk yearn for infallibility and the denial of death (Becker). This is why Musk calls the vulnerable, ‘parasites’. Anything that slows down efficiency must be demonised. Anything that humanises persons is deemed ‘woke’.
The acceptance of fallibility, harm and death is the beginning of an The Ethics of Freedom (Ellul). There is no freedom in Technique.
In an ethic of non-power, one must accept the paradoxes of fallibility, freedom and personhood. At the heart of the quest for zero (https://safetyrisk.net/hyper-safety-and-the-fear-of-safety/) is the rejection of human fallibility and the inefficiencies of personhood. Any quest for perfection is anti-human and anti-learning.
In order to develop an Ethic of Risk, one needs the freedom to reject the power-centrism of Technique. It is from here one can develop an Ethic of Risk that centralises the nature of personhood at the heart of how one tackles risk.
If you want to learn more about SPoR and an ethic of non-power, you can join the free Ethics in Risk group that starts next week. Simply email: admin@spor.com.au
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Snap, Crackle, Pop. That’s the Sound we Love to Hear - March 23, 2025
- SPoR Chat Room, Research and Connections - March 23, 2025
- SPoR Coaching and Free Module on the iCue Engagement Method - March 21, 2025
- Santa, Myths and Regulators. - March 14, 2025
- SPoR Convention 2025 – Canberra -15 to19 September - March 14, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below