One of the fascinating things about Safety is how it uses Archetype language and personification as if objects have a life of their own. We observe this in how Rasmussen writes about Systems. Yet, how strange when others describe Safety as an Archetype with a life of its own, they are condemned as anti-safety.
I find it amusing that Safety has its favourites when it writes about anything. Rather than turn to a Transdisciplinary source, Safety always turns to the same tired old safety sources like: Rasmussen, Heinrich, Dekker, Reason, Conklin, Hollnagel etc. And, when one turns to these sources, all one gets is more old traditional safety – more systems, more factors, more objects, more controls, more systems, more capacity, more performance and more systems. This is the methodology of Safety, there is no methodological difference. The philosophy is the same.
The Rasmussen legacy is written about by Safety with adoration (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26860739/), accompanied by ‘goop’ about ‘new’, ‘different’ and ‘radical change’. The reality is, Rasmussen is just more of the same ruminations about systems, objects, controls, systems, performance, measurement, systems, factors and oh yes, systems. You can throw all the adjectives at an idea in safety but if the philosophy is the same, then there is no new method, there is nothing new.
The first activity one must do when being thrown the propaganda of ‘different’ or ‘new’ is to do some basic Discourse Analysis. Applying some simple linguistic skills in analysis will demonstrate that a few words may be shifted around but underneath there is no difference. For example, the way Rasmussen uses Archetype in the description of models and systems. Even in his description of a ‘socio-technical system’ there is nothing about persons, culture, relationships, fallibility, ecologies, Socialitie, Semiosphere and it’s all about Technique (Ellul).
I wonder how many people in safety understand that a model is a semiotic? I wonder if they can look at Rasmussen’s models and think critically about what it represents and doesn’t represent? I wonder if they understand that all Semiotics carry a semiosis? I wonder if they understand that a philosophical Discourse is embedded in all models?
No model is objective. No model is NOT a semiotic. So, an understanding of semiotics might be a good place to start in understanding the non-legacy of Rasmussen who safety adores.
I wonder if Safety understands that Rasmussen’s model holds a bias towards scientism, positivism, behaviourism and utilitarianism? Guess what? These are the philosophies that dominate Safety whether its Hollnagel, Dekker, Conklin or Rasmussen. The starting point is not persons, Socialitie, ecology or relationships, its systems. Even when the discourse of ‘human factors’ is used its always about humans as a ‘’factor in a system. Human factors is not about persons.
So, when Safety puts forward a model/semiotic what do they understand about semiotics, semiosis or semiosphere (Lotman), very little.
So, Rasmussen put forward the following semiotic and Safety thinks this is some kind of revolution or radical change.
The semiotic is all about Technique (Ellul), the favourite ideology of Safety.
Look at the language: performance, work load, efficiency, failure, performance, error, performance. Same old Safety, same old methodology. Still, Safety goes back to this refuse trying to find something meaningful (semiosis). The semiotic of curves and arrows all push to the centre and guess what, the focus is performance with the suggested outcome – measurement. It’s all the same old stuff. But there it is, and Rasmussen is often quoted in many non-safety-differently texts.
Nothing about persons, culture, relationships, fallibility, ecologies, Socialitie, Semiosphere and it’s always about Technique (Ellul).
The legacy of Rasmussen is more of the same: scientism, positivism, behaviourism and utilitarianism.
What an absurd idea that Safety still goes back to Heinrich (https://safetyrisk.net/?s=Heinrich) and Rasmussen looking for insight into the wicked problem of risk? (https://safetyrisk.net/update-free-workshop-on-wicked-problems-with-matt-thorne/).
Without a shift in methodology, despite all the spin to the contrary, the method will remain the same: systems, objects, controls, systems, performance, measurement, systems, factors and oh yes, systems.
If you are interested in something that actually is different, positive and constructive that works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/) then there are many ways to start, all for free and easy to download.
Intro to SPoR
https://vimeo.com/showcase/4233556
Due Diligence
https://vimeo.com/manage/showcases/4883640
Books
https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
Rosa says
Hello Rob, As a non safety person I used Rasmussen and Dekker in my first book –The Relationship Factor in Safety Leadership. I knew “safety leadership” doesn’t exist but the publisher made me use it and to tell you the truth if I hadn’t I don’t think anyone would have bought my book because there are millions of books on leadership. I quoted Dekker because he was the first person who I ever saw refer to safety as a “social science.”
Rasmussen’s diagram above did not use the term “social fields” but indeed that is what he drew. Sometimes people don’t see the forest for the trees which was I believe what happened here. I would have loved to discuss this with him. All of those boundaries are driven by social forces. “The space of possibilities to be resolved according to subjective preferences.” Sensemaking, not policy or procedure. Maybe someday we can employ the African custom of bringing back the presence of someone who passed on to learn what they were really thinkin???
Rob Long says
Thanks Rosa. The linguistics of safety is critical, both what is said and not said. I find it amusing to see safety people talk about the importance of relationships and then write nothing about it. I call these the safety silences. and these silences are telling whether by Rasmussen, Dekker or whoever. How fascinating that words like fallibility, ecology, care and a host of critical discourse in relationships and social semiosis are never used. Its always objects and systems not persons.
Of course Rasmussen is held up as some kind of innovator but moving the chairs on the titanic doesn’t mean much. We see this in the not-safety-differently group. Read their books, use Discourse Analysis and the message and philosophy is the same. Without a shift in methodology there can be no shift in method.