Fixated on the Positives in Safety

The fixation of the non-safety differently group on the positive, creates a new language of avoidance. The words one mustn’t speak in this new language are words like: ‘blame’, ‘fault’, ‘fallible’, ‘mortality’, ‘deficiency’ or ‘defective’. The idea that one shifts focus from only learning from positives and rejecting negatives is an outcome of positive psychology ideology.

After years of the negative in safety, the non-safety differently group have swung the pendulum to the opposite pole. Anything negative is demonised because ‘blame fixes nothing’. Of course, we know that this slogan is not true (https://safetyrisk.net/blame-fixes-many-things-and-the-slogan-trap/) such are the extremities of the pendulum swing. Unfortunately, what comes with this transition is an air of moral superiority as if any deconstruction or negativity is ‘wrong’.

All of this is clearly anchored to the myths of Seligman and the school of positive psychology (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11946304_Positive_Psychology_An_Introduction).

The reality is, there is nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘unethical’ about the negative. There is nothing wrong about learning from error. Similarly, taking a position that deconstructs something is neither unethical or morally inferior.

Just because the safety industry has a history and focus on the punitive, doesn’t mean that critical thinking, critical theory or deconstruction is morally wrong. Indeed, most deconstruction leads to a reconstruction by alternatives that pose a more humanising ethic.

What is needed in safety is to focus on the balance. Just because someone declares something as a virtue or a slogan doesn’t make it so. Moral meaning and ethical outcome are all determined socially and culturally in context.

The pathway to a balance between the negative and positive in risk is found in the dialectic, between both. This is what the approach of SPoR advocates.

This is why SPoR promotes real and practical, positive alternatives to the pendulum swings of traditional safety and the so called ‘new view’. This alternative is supported by a well-articulated methodology and method (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/).

Slogans are NOT principles (https://safetyrisk.net/sacrificing-truth-for-no-blame/). Indeed, the purpose of slogans is to prevent critical thinking (https://safetyrisk.net/the-blame-game-of-hop/). Slogans are the bedrock of indoctrination, just as focusing blindly on the positives creates un-critical myopia. Why would you want to develop skills in critical thinking when slogans will do?

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

• Upside Down Safety and Red Pen Safety Non-Leadership - April 26, 2025
• All You Love is Need - April 26, 2025
• How to Make Safety Culture Myths True - April 26, 2025
• Building Belief and Networks of Belief in Safety - April 23, 2025
• The Harm You Cannot See - April 19, 2025

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.