Silence, Power and an Ethic of Risk
Grace so ably articulates the foundations of morality and ethics, in this inspiring address (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4BErJDLhD0 ).
The place to start in any understanding of ethics and morality is an understanding of power and silence. Neither of these critical foundations is considered in the AIHS Body of Knowledge (BoK) Chapter on Ethics (https://www.ohsbok.org.au/chapter-38-3-ethics-and-professional-practice/ ). Indeed, the silence on the nature of power in the Chapter is itself and indictment of its naivety, immaturity and ignorance.
One of the best ways to discover the nature of the AIHS Body of Knowledge (BoK) on Ethics is to look at what it is silent about. This is how you groom a population to believe the nonsense of: duty, ‘check your gut’ and ‘do the right thing’, all woolly meaningless rhetoric to ensure that the elephant in the room; silence and power remain unspoken.
Silence is a form of hiding, and the power of silence is the perpetrator’s best tool for grooming. Grooming is a gradual form of set up, like gaslighting a victim who doesn’t know they are being exploited (https://safetyrisk.net/the-scars-and-harm-you-dont-see-and-cant-count/ ).
Isn’t it strange in an industry that seeks to promote professional practice and protection of persons, that it is silent on: personhood, power and silence. How strange to publish a document that espouses ethics, when it confuses morality and ethics, and remains silent on the most critical element of ethics. If the AIHS BoK Chapter on ethics achieves anything, it is the grooming of an industry to accept this pathetic document as authoritative on ethics.
The best way to give power to perpetrators and the powerful, is to be silent about power. In this way too, the politics of power is also kept silent under the naïve nonsense of objectivity and impartiality, all wonderfully presented in the AIHS Code of Ethics (https://www.aihs.org.au/sites/default/files/20200517%20AIHS%20Code%20of%20Ethics_editable.pdf). This is the same code of ethics that omits mention of the concepts of: power, politics, silence and persons, the foundations of ethics.
Of course the great silence in the AIHS BoK Chapter of Ethics is the notion of zero, the global mantra for brutalism in the industry, ‘front and centre’ for the next world congress for safety (http://visionzero.global/events-and-trainings ). If you want to know the ethic of an organization look for what they are silent about and then look for denial.
The best way to give power to this mantra of zero, is to be silent about it. Let’s have no conversation about zero, its semiotic power, its cultural power or its political and ideological power, and yet put up some smoke screen about respect, trust and honesty.
The zero harm survey (https://safetyrisk.net/take-the-zero-survey/) demonstrates clearly that practitioners in the safety industry think zero is fundamentally unethical and fosters dishonesty. How does that stand against this code of ethics? When you don’t know how to articulate an ethic of risk, you will come up with this kind of nonsense.
So, if you want to know about ethics, morality, a code of ethics or an ethic, it cannot be found in safety’s BoK, what you do find there is silence about power and power in such silence. Instead, start by listening to Grace Tame and her story of how power and silence are the tools for unethical abuse. And as Grace will tell you, this is the power of cover up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOQq4HPpHPk ).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Tackling Risk and Learning in Practice - September 15, 2024
- Good Old Safety Performance - September 13, 2024
- How Do You DO Safety Differently? - September 13, 2024
- Research Interview Podcast – SPoR and Jung - September 13, 2024
- Podcast – What Jung Can Contribute to Safety – Part One - September 12, 2024
Bernard Corden says
If you are looking for sympathy it lies somewhere between shit and syphilis in any corporate safety glossary
Rob Long says
Spot on Ray.
Amongst the many delusions, myths and naiveties of safety is politics. Even when they hold a conference on power and politics they don’t talk about it.
Then nothing in the BoK or WHS curriculum on the elephant in the room either. Then your comment about ‘disloyal’ is the politicization of an ideology, usually zero. I can’t see anything across the safety industry globally that is even slightly savvy about politics or ethics. You certainly don’t get smart about such things through the lens of engineering and science.
So when your question is determined to be ‘disloyal’ you know that the deontological ethic of duty is in play. Then turn to the BoK on ethics to confirm it and you will be shown the door. A wonderful to crucify someone and inflict emotional and psychological harm, all in the name of zero and certainly will never hear the words ‘helping’ or ‘care’.
Ray Lane says
… and loyalty. When any misalignment, criticism or questioning is “disloyal” to the opaque, silent system that feeds and keeps you.
Rob Long says
Grace Tame’s full address here: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address/series/0/video/NC2111C005S00
Rob Long says
The power of silence works many ways. I know many who disagree with zero but have to be silent or they will lose their job. This is then interpreted as agreement, such is the tyranny of the absolute. Then organisations that chose to be silent about zero ie. removing it from their discourse, discover that brutalism is not empowered and they start to humanise the processes of safety and tackling risk.
As for the binary come back, zero is in the domain of dumb, for those who can’t think critically other than kindergarten binary nonsense. Yes, I am OK with people getting hurt and we all ought to be, it’s why we have insurance policies and hospitals. Just because you build a hospital doesn’t mean it creates accidents, just because you have an insurance policy doesn’t mean you create reckless behaviour.
There’s nothing more dumb than a zero hero.
Brent R Charlton says
The proponents of zero silence like to silence those waking up to the brutalism with “well you must be ok with people getting hurt then.” What a ridiculous comeback.