Originally posted on December 29, 2022 @ 12:29 PM
In Hopkin’s chapter (4) The Use and Abuse of “Culture” in Safety Culture, Culture Models the assumption is made that misunderstanding and misuse of an idea is ‘abusive’. (The use of such an emotive term is never explained by Hopkins, nor is any connection made between supposed ‘confusion’ and ‘abuse’)
Hopkins refers to Hale (Hale, A. (2000). Culture’s confusions. Safety Science, 34(1), 1–14.) which also creates confusion by making discussion of culture and safety culture, interchangeable.
But first some quotes from Hopkins:
‘Culture is a misunderstood and misused idea’. (p.35)
‘The most useful definition of the culture of a collectivity is its set of collective practices – the way we do things around here’. (p.35)
‘In my view, then, the most useful way to define culture is as the collective practices of the group—the way we do things around here.’ (p.39)
As sure as you see this definition you know that what follows has little to do with culture. Indeed, this is the definition that best sanctions behaviourism (BBS).
‘The term safety culture is so confusing it should be abandoned’. (p.35)
‘Most of the theses concern culture; only the last will deal specifically with safety culture.’
‘Given the nature of this book my focus will be on organisational culture, rather than culture as a more general sociological/anthropological idea, but it cannot be exclusively so, because organisational culture sits with that more general context.’ (p.36)
Of course, Hopkins doesn’t follow what he states, like many in safety he uses the language of ‘culture’, ‘climate’, ‘safety culture’, ‘mindset’ and ‘organisational culture’ etc. interchangeably. Indeed, one thing Safety is good at is, creating the confusion it so readily complains about because it has such a poor understanding of culture.
Just as well these First Nations people are not confused and abused about culture: https://nit.com.au/28-12-2022/4605/next-crop-of-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-professionals-graduate-in-victoria?
How refreshing to see a Transdisciplinary approach to culture (complete with smoking ceremony – https://safetyrisk.net/no-wonder-safety-is-confused-about-culture/ ).
Meanwhile back on safety world we get this sort of stuff: https://risk-engineering.org/concept/safety-culture
See how this jumps all over the place from ‘safety culture’ to ‘organisational culture’ to ‘culture’ as if they are one and the same. What would you expect from engineering or behaviourism when it comes to culture? It seems the moment Safety puts itself as an adjective in front of anything, it distorts what follows. We see this with Reason who proposes 5 different subsets to define ‘safety culture’, none of which help define anything, least of all culture.
None of this is language in everyday use. I don’t go to a ‘safety’ supermarket to buy ‘safety’ bread or to a ‘safety’ petrol station to buy ‘safety’ petrol. Why is it then that Safety is such an industry that it is so obsessed with itself? Indeed, this is why Safety deems obsession as a good thing (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-a-mental-health-disorder-obsession/) when in reality anyone in psychology will tell you that obsession is evidence of a mental health disorder (https://safetyrisk.net/how-an-obsession-with-safety-leads-to-mental-illness-tyranny-academy-of-ideas/; https://safetyrisk.net/obsession-with-health-and-safety-is-killing-science/ ).
Perhaps if Safety stopped fixating on itself and its obsessions and focused on living, being and personhood, it might get a better hold on what culture is (https://safetyrisk.net/no-wonder-safety-is-confused-about-culture/).
Free Module in Culture and Safety
So, for those who are able and willing to suspend their own assumptions and framing in knowing, there are ways of understanding culture that can be learned, outside of the safety paradigm. First, a great deal has to be unlearned (stepping away from engineering and behaviourism) and letting go of the safety paradigm, in order to move forward to a different way of knowing.
The first rule of culture is to make sure you talk about culture; the second rule of culture is to talk about it outside of the safety paradigm.
If this module is of interest and you are seeking an understanding of culture and the culture of safety, Dr Long will be conducting a free Module on Culture and safety in 2023. It’s easy to register for this free program, by just send an email to robertlong2@mac.com and you will be put in the list.
The module will run Zoom sessions every Tuesday at 9am (Canberra time) starting on 21 February 2023 and with 90-minute sessions at 9 am and each following Tuesday at 9 am for 5 weeks. This means that the last session will be on 21 March 2023.
Do NOT register for this program simply because it is free. Register if you think you are ready to let go and learn.
Those interested can start by reading Dr Long’s blogs on culture and culture silences:
· https://safetyrisk.net/category/safety-culture-3/
· https://safetyrisk.net/category/safety-culture-silences/
Similarly, it will be helpful to read some of Lotman:
· The Unpredictable Workings of Culture
· Universe of the Mind, A Semiotic Theory of Culture
Or Bachelard:
· https://sites.evergreen.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/88/2015/05/Gaston-Bachelard-the-Poetics-of-Space.pdf
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- HOP is Traditional Safety - October 9, 2024
- Defining Safety by the Absence of Accidents, Injury and Harm - October 9, 2024
- Visual and Verbal Mapping of Risk in SPoR - October 7, 2024
- Making Nothing Happen in Safety - October 7, 2024
- Understanding the Nature of Performance and HOP - October 5, 2024
Matt Thorne says
The word abuse only appears in the title. My grade 3 English teacher taught me in creative writing lessons that the title has to have something to do with the body.
Rob Long says
The best way to be abusive is to remain silent about it.