By Simon Renatus
Phenomenology[i] challenges traditional distinctions between appearance and reality by proposing that phenomena reveal reality directly. Rather than searching for a hidden truth behind appearances, phenomenology asserts that reality is embedded in how the world presents itself to us.
Traditional philosophy often distinguishes between how objects appear (phenomena) and their true, objective nature. This carries the assumption that to understand an object fully, one must go beyond its appearance. Phenomenology tells us something about the apparent nature of objects, but the assumption that a deeper, objective reality exists beyond appearances implies a ‘two-world doctrine’: that the phenomenon conceals an objective reality behind it. This implies that behind the veil of subjectivity lies the ‘really real’. However, is this division necessary?
Heidegger’s phenomenology rejects the two-world doctrine, arguing that phenomena do not conceal reality but reveal it directly. As he states,
A phenomenon is nothing behind which there would be something else… since what that phenomenon gives is precisely that something in itself. (Heidegger, 1985, p. 86).
In phenomenology, there is no hidden reality to be uncovered beyond appearances. Reality can show itself in different forms or contexts. For example, an object might appear differently when you casually perceive it, when you use it, or when you analyse it scientifically. In all these cases, what is appearing is still the reality, just from different angles or layers of understanding. What appears to us is reality itself, as presented through various modes of manifestation.
In this view, there is no conflict between the subjective and ‘science’. Phenomenology provides a more integrated approach to knowledge, where both everyday perception and scientific investigation reveal different aspects of the same reality. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather different manifestations.
This perspective weakens the argument for Safety-as-science or Safety-as-engineering. In workplace safety, phenomenology’s insights can be applied to the way workers’ experiences of risks are perceived.
The two-world doctrine is reflected in how safety models like the Heinrich Pyramid[ii] or Bradley Curve[iii], are treated as absolute truths. These models imply a hidden, objective risk reality that management claims to understand, while workers’ lived experiences are considered subjective, and therefore, invalid. This creates a dangerous disconnect; “real” safety is perceived as existing beyond the everyday experiences of workers.
However, phenomenology tells us that reality, including safety, is revealed through multiple manifestations. The Heinrich Pyramid and Bradley Curve are not definitive truths but rather specific representations of understanding safety—manifestations that highlight certain aspects of risk. Workers’ experiences are another manifestation, just as valid and necessary in shaping a comprehensive understanding of risk. A phenomenological approach to safety challenges the arrogance of relying solely on quasi-scientific models, and instead embraces the full range of experiences and manifestations, allowing safety to be co-created by management and workers alike.
Phenomenology challenges the traditional separation between appearance and reality by emphasizing that reality is revealed through phenomena. This perspective has practical implications for workplace safety, where workers’ perceptions of risks must be valued as part of the real risk landscape.
Sources
Heidegger, M. (1985). History of the concept of time: Prolegomena (T. Kisiel, Trans.). Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1927).
Heinrich, H. W. (1941). Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach (2nd ed., 7th impression). McGraw-Hill.
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Szwedzka, K., & Szczuka, M. (2015). Behaviour based intervention for occupational safety – Case study. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences. Poznan University of Technology.
Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge.
[i] Phenomenology: As one of the most influential philosophical traditions of the 20th century, phenomenology was founded by Edmund Husserl to examine how we directly experience and perceive the world. Rather than seeking to explain why things exist, phenomenology focuses on how they appear to us, exploring the structures of consciousness and experience. Prominent figures such as Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty expanded on Husserl’s work, furthering our understanding of reality as it’s lived, rather than as an abstract concept.
[ii] The Heinrich Pyramid, introduced by H.W. Heinrich in Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach (1941), suggests that for every major accident, there are a greater number of minor incidents and even more near misses. The model implies a statistical correlation between the frequency of these events, with the idea that reducing minor incidents and near misses will also reduce major accidents. Although widely used in safety management, the model has been criticised for oversimplifying the complexity of workplace accidents.
[iii] The Bradley Curve is a model developed by DuPont to illustrate the stages of safety culture maturity within an organisation. The curve outlines four phases: reactive, dependent, independent, and interdependent, suggesting that as an organisation’s safety culture matures, individuals move from being dependent on external enforcement of safety rules to taking personal responsibility and ultimately working interdependently. Critics argue that the model oversimplifies cultural transformation and may not account for the complexities of human behaviour in different workplace environments.
Damien Francis Jameson says
Don’t all models over simplify their subject? Isn’t a model (every model) an attempt for one thinker/person to impress a ‘standard’ of behaviour upon another without taking that other’s understanding, culture, behavioural complexities into account?
Is every model an abstract concept then, and at odds with phenomenology?
And is the purpose of a model to exact a set of rules and functions upon a group that the individuals within the group must follow if they wish to remain a member of the group?
We know that Safety relies on that premise to its detriment, but I am still struggling to find an effective replacement strategy for the numerous various models current safety professionals are obliged to follow. Any workable suggestions?
Rob Long says
Damien, it’s important that we don’t get lost in models or strategies when trying to understand the philosophy of phenomenology. Models need to be understood semiotically and poetically not rationally, they are at best visual representations of a philosophy/methodology. There is no sense in which a methodology seeks to invoke a ‘standard of behaviour’ because an ethic emerges out of the philosophy/methodology which becomes its method. When I express my philosophy I take into account what I know of other philosophies, if there are indeed articulated. Unfortunatley, in safety, you won’t find an articulated methodology or ethic anywhere. eg. when I present and articulate the philosophy of SPoR I take into account the philosophies of positivism and behaviourism that dominate safety. I don’t agree with them but understand them. That certainly doesn’t inhibit an articulation of the philosophy that drives SPoR.
We also have to consider paradox, dialectic and contradiction in understanding phenomenology and semiotics. Neither seek a false sense of security. Neither seek a perfect philosophy. So, semiotics is not at odds with phenomenology.
This means that no semiotics has anything to do with rules or functions upon a group. All semiotics are interpreted.
As for safety models. They all emerge from positivist and behaviourist methodologies and are extremely limited and don’t come close to representing any kind of reality eg. pyramids, swiss cheese etc.
Rather than. looking for a replacement strategy, the search has to be for a better philosophy. BTW, safety people (not professionals, because they have no ethic) are under no obligation to follow any of the models presented by Safety