Positives and Negatives in Dialectic in Safety
I find it interesting how positives (in language and discourse) have now been attributed with a moral imperative in safety. Of course, negatives and positives ought to be held in balance/tension, one is not morally better than the other. If the outcome and purpose of negatives is learning then negative criticism and analysis is a good. Similarly, the tension and dialectic/exchange between negatives and positives is also helpful if learning is the outcome. This is also the assumption of Critical and Cultural Theory.
Whenever I am critical about the Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM) worldview in safety it is always to open up the STEM-only view to conversation. The problem is never STEM but the STEM-only worldview that cannot come into conversation with views outside of itself. Similarly, Zero is an extreme that cannot enter into conversation or dialectic.
In safety the STEM-only worldview is privileged over other worldviews and this is problematic. The STEM-only worldview is often called ‘scientism’. If STEM-only was able to have conversations with its opposite, much could be learned. If STEM-only was able to perceive value in the dialectic with non-STEM disciplines, much could be learned. Unfortunately, the dominant worldview in safety is the STEM-only worldview. The WHS curriculum has a STEM-only focus. This is also the case with the AIHS Body of Knowledge, 85% of the BoK is STEM-only.
In the Education worldview the place of learning is experienced in movement, dialectic and conversation. In Safety, there is only zero, the numeric ideology for the negative. How strange that when you criticize Zero, the focus of STEM-only is on the criticism not the negativity of zero itself. So, global safety attaches itself to the symbolic/numeric negative in zero and then criticises any criticism of zero for being negative???
Whenever I write I seek to hold the tension of negatives and positives in tension/balance. This is the model for all my books and publications. Cherry-picking according to ones attributions and bias is not about learning. Any criticism I offer should always held in tension with positive practical alternatives such is evident in all my books, for example: It Works! A New Approach to Risk and Safety (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/).
All my books are constructed on this dialectic of negatives and positives in tension, half of which are offered for free download (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/).
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below