Technique – The Worship of a False Idol

By Simon Renatus

In the digital age, we have traded gods of stone for gods of silicon, bowing to the altar of algorithms and screens, mistaking data for wisdom and followers for meaning.  (ChatGPT, 2024)

This quote raises important questions about the role of technology in our lives.  Can an artificial intelligence platform such as ChatGPT truly create such a comment?  Does it have a genuine interest in the existence of god (or gods)?  For millennia, creativity, discourse and faith have been recognised as uniquely human characteristics.  As we navigate a world increasingly shaped by technology, what does this mean for our essence?  In the context of workplace safety, the question begs to be asked: Are we orienting safety systems towards the protection of human well-being, or towards the demands of technology?

Jacques Ellul, sociologist and theologian, explored this question in his 1964 critique The Technological Society.  Ellul used the term Technique to describe any system of standardised method aimed at achieving predetermined outcomes, with a focus on efficiency and optimisation.  In his view, machines and technology are instruments of Technique; it is Technique that integrates them into society.  (Technique is capitalised and italicised to denote an understanding of it as an Archetype).  As Ellul describes, this is a quest for continually improved means toward carelessly examined ends in search for perfection (Ellul 1964, p. vi).

This has serious implications for workplace safety.  While safe systems of work are mandated by Australian legislation, the definition of what constitutes such a system is open to interpretation, as is clearly demonstrated by the courts.  Many organisations adopt an overly simplistic view and consider the requirement a purely technical one, and therefore requiring a technical solution.  Consequently, volumes of policies, procedures, and checklists are produced in the pursuit of a standardised method to reduce harm to workers.  This goal becomes sacrosanct, and all efforts are directed toward achieving it.  However, Technique has a flip side: What happens when the needs of the system overshadow the needs of those it is meant to serve?

Drawing on Ellul’s critique, this paper argues that Safety (as an Archetype) blindly worships Technique as a false idol, sacrificing the essence of being human in pursuit of control over the uncontrollable, and in doing so, contradicts its own objectives.

I will demonstrate how this idolisation negatively impacts workplace safety by undermining the human experience, alienating workers and diminishing their agency, and by the misuse of data. I will also propose a more human-centred approach as a way forward.

Technique’s Dominion.  Undermining the Human Experience

Technique refers to the systematic and relentless pursuit of efficiency and optimisation toward a desired end state, and most contemporary safety management systems fit neatly into this framework.  While these systems aim for predictable safety outcomes (with ‘Zero Harm’ being at the extreme), they often evolve into an ‘idol’—an unquestioned authority that shapes social structures and the human experience[1].

This can be described as technological determinism, where a system develops according to its own logic, and workers must adapt to it, rather than the other way around.  This phenomenon raises a curious question: How does an abstract construct acquire a status it does not intrinsically possess?  A system has no concept of social structure or being—those are uniquely human considerations.  According to Ellul, when organisations become fixated on refining techniques and optimising processes, what it means to be human is sacrificed. He noted:

Technical invasion does not involve the simple addition of new values to old ones.  It does not put new wine into old bottles; it does not introduce new content into old forms.  The old bottles are all being broken.  (Ellul, 1964, p. 121)

What exactly is being sacrificed?  The answer lies in the realm of Poetics.  Poetics are abstractions beyond the measurable or concrete, such as dignity, empathy and purpose—elements essential to the human condition.  They cannot be reduced to numbers or efficiencies, but they offer meaning that drives human life.  Life, after all, is experienced rather than calculated and Poetics provide depth in ways that technical systems are unable to.  Engaging with Poetics[2] acknowledges that human existence cannot be fully understood through the rigid objectification that Technique demands.  As a result, a tension emerges between the abstract world of human experiences and the cold rationality of Technique.

This tension is particularly evident in incident investigation methods—a core component of safety management systems.  ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) is a widely used systematic approach intended to discover incident root causes, but on closer inspection, the language of ICAM reveals the dominance of Technique.  The extracts below are from two consultancy websites detailing ICAM’s advantages:

ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) is a structured and systematic investigation approach used to understand the root causes of incidents and accidents in various industries…  (Martin, 2023)

ICAM provides a structured methodology for conducting investigations, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the incident are thoroughly examined.  (Martin, 2023)

To aid Investigators and provide a disciplined, structured approach to data collection, the ICAM process advocates collecting data under five key areas, referred to as PEEPO, which refers to:

• People – who can provide more information about the incident, the process, the equipment, the lead-up to the incident, etc. List roles / people who will be spoken to or interviewed.
• Environment – what environmental impact was present at the time (both external, such as weather) as well as internal (stress, time pressures, etc.)
• Equipment – what equipment, tools, and plant were involved / of interest in relation to the incident?
• Procedures – what relevant procedures, documentation/paperwork are relevant to understand the operator / plant / process, etc.
• Organisation – policies and processes in relation to underlying organisational issues. (ICAM Australia, n.d.)

The repetitive use of terms like “structured,” “systematic,” and “methodology” reflect the sterile, process-oriented focus of Technique.  Workers become mere variables in a system designed to achieve measurable outcomes.  In doing so, the richness of human experience is disregarded.  By subordinating people to processes, Technique undermines the essential human qualities of dignity and agency, reducing them to an input in the pursuit of efficiency.

Technique’s focus on the measurable and the concrete shapes safety systems.  The next section will examine how this domination leads to the alienation of workers and the loss of their agency.

Alienation and Loss of Agency.  A Fall from Grace

The worship of Technique leads to the alienation of workers, stripping them of agency. Instead of being active participants, they become passive followers of rigid safety systems, disconnected from meaning and purpose. Subordinate to the system’s demands, their autonomy is diminished, leaving them at the mercy of impersonal processes.

He is reduced, in the process, to a near nullity.  Even if he is not a worker on the assembly line, his share of autonomy and individual initiative becomes smaller and smaller.  He is constrained and repressed in the thought and action by an omnivorous reality which is external to him and imposed upon him.  He is no longer permitted to display any personal power.  (Ellul, 1964, p. 302)

Evidence of this disconnect can be found in another key safety system component: Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS).  SWMS are mandated in Australia by Work Health and Safety laws for nineteen specified high-risk construction activities.  They are a written expression of a safe system (method) of work and are the main documents guiding workers’ interaction with risk on site.  They identify tasks to be undertaken, the risks arising from those tasks and measures to be put in place to control the resulting hazards.  Below is an extract from a Safe Work Australia publication detailing who should be involved in the creation of a SWMS:[3]

Managers, contractors, leading hands and workers should all be involved in developing a SWMS. Consulting workers is important so they understand the detail of the SWMS and what they are required to do to implement and maintain risk controls. Sharing information and using the knowledge and experience of workers will help make sure the work is performed in accordance with the SWMS.  (Safe Work Australia, 2014, p. 1)

Safe Work Australia, as a government agency, acknowledges the importance of involvement, knowledge sharing and the accessing of worker experience.  In the document, workers’ agency, creative contribution and bricolage are encouraged.

However, the following excerpt from David Borys’ 2012 paper suggests this does not happen in the field.  Borys researched workers’ interaction with SWMS, and their level of contribution was one of the aspects studied.  In the following extract, a labourer gives his first-hand account:[4]

Most labourers said they had little or no input into the writing of SWMS, for example, one labourer said: “I wouldn’t have any.  Well you would put forward suggestions if you like… usually when it comes to us the JSA is already written up on how to approach something, they would run it past a gang of men… how they are going to do the job we could make suggestions at that stage to change things.  I suppose for what we would be doing I suppose it would come from the office… but that would be normally written up by the time we get to where I’m at and you just follow those guidelines.”  From their perspective ‘management’ or the ‘foreman’ wrote SWMS.  One labourer said that it was ‘not their job’ to write SWMS.  (Borys, 2012, p. 13)

Borys’ research indicates it is largely supervisors and managers who create SWMS at a distance to the workers.  Work cannot commence until the requirements of the SWMS are fulfilled, so its completion becomes the goal.  The workers’ creative contribution is considered immaterial to the process, and they are accordingly positioned subordinate to the system.  Ellul describes the ascendence of Technique and the fall of agency:

It is impossible to make industrial labour interesting by allowing the worker to introduce his own personality into it.  He must be rendered completely unconscious and mechanised in such a way that he cannot even dream of asserting himself.  The technical problem is to make his gestures so automatic that they have no personal quality at all.  (Ellul, 1964, p. 399)

As workers become increasingly subservient to the system, their experience and insights are side-lined in favour of compliance.  Technique presents another temptation that intensifies their alienation: the allure of metrics.  The pursuit of data further deepens the divide between workers and their sense of purpose and meaning.

Data Over Wisdom – The Temptation of Metrics

Modern man can think only in terms of figures, and the higher the figures, the greater the satisfaction.  (Ellul, 1964, p. 302)

In contemporary safety management, metrics present an irresistible temptation.  However, this data-driven approach is fundamentally flawed because it relies heavily on past events to predict future outcomes.  Organisations assume that analysing past patterns will guarantee future safety, but David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, exposed the flaw in this assumption with his critique on Inductive Reasoning.

Hume argued that just because something has consistently occurred in the past does not guarantee it will happen again.  This is known as the problem of induction, which challenges the assumption that future events will always mirror the past (Hume, 2007).  Relying on historical data to predict future safety is thus inherently unreliable, as it assumes that past incidents are adequate indicators of future risks, without considering unforeseen factors may change the outcome.

The horse racing industry is a perfect example of limited data-driven prediction.  Horse racing has been optimised to the highest degree, with vast sums of money and resources spent analysing past performance, track conditions, and jockey statistics.  In Australia alone, over $21 billion was wagered in 2019-2020 (Accumulate Australia, 2024, “Horse Racing and Sport Betting,” point 17).  If any industry could perfect predictive models, it would be horse racing, where the financial incentive is immense.  Yet, despite all the optimisation and use of advanced data models, the outcome of a race remains unpredictable.  Even the most sophisticated algorithms can’t account for the myriad of variables that affect the result on race day.

This unpredictability mirrors Taleb’s concept of the Black Swan, which describes rare, catastrophic events that data models based on past trends fail to foresee (Taleb, 2007).  Taleb argues that these events, while unlikely, have a profound impact and expose the limitations of systems that rely too heavily on historical data.

Lost Time Injury Rates (LTIRs) are a prime example of how safety metrics are skewed toward past events.  LTIRs measure the number of injuries resulting in lost work time and focus on easily quantifiable data.  They track historical incidents, calculating the number of working days lost per 1 million hours worked, but offer no predictive value.  They tell us what has happened, not what will happen.  In organisations driven by Technique, this fixation on past data blinds systems to emerging risks.  No amount of LTIR tracking can account for future events, highlighting the inadequacy of metrics as a sole guide for future risks.

This over-reliance on metrics like LTIRs can also be seen in safety audits and incident reporting; both of which are also anchored to historical data.  Safety audits, designed to ensure system compliance, devolve into box-ticking exercises prioritising process over genuine insight.  Similarly, incident reporting systems generate mountains of documentation with no guarantee of meaningful action.  These artifacts of Technique create a false sense of security, where achieving benchmarks and adhering to procedures are mistaken for the possibility of safety.

However, workplace safety is not solely about physical injury.  There is a growing recognition that psychosocial harm—stress, anxiety, depression and emotional trauma—play a significant role in overall worker well-being.[5]  While metrics like LTIRs capture quantifiable physical incidents, they often fail to address the more complex and less visible psychosocial risks that workers face.  These risks can be exacerbated by environments that prioritise efficiency over human-centred care.  As safety systems become fixated on quantifiable data, the subtle signs of psychosocial harm can be overlooked, creating an incomplete picture of workplace well-being.

In this way, safety systems that focus purely on data miss the full scope of risks faced by workers.  Just as horse racing’s predictive models fail to account for unpredictable human and environmental factors, the narrow focus on physical injuries in safety metrics neglects the unpredictable and complex psychological challenges that have a profound impact on worker well-being.  Ignoring these risks leaves organisations vulnerable not only to physical incidents but also to the significant costs associated with psychological injuries.

The reliance on metrics over human discernment highlights a crucial issue in current safety systems: the need for a more nuanced approach.  As demonstrated, a focus on quantifiable data undermines the human elements crucial for effective safety management.  The next section, “The Need for a Human-Centred Approach to Safety – Redemption through Human Values,” proposes a shift towards safety systems that balance technical optimisation with the essential human elements of meaning and purpose.

The Need for a Human-Centred Approach to Safety – Redemption through Human Values

While Technique-driven safety systems excel in data collection and enforcing compliance, they often overlook the most crucial element: the human persons they are meant to protect.  A truly effective safety system must transcend metrics, recognising the intrinsic value of people. This calls for a human-centred approach, where moral symmetry—balancing efficiency with the ethical obligation to safeguard workers’ holistic well-being—is essential.

The peasants and the workers bore all the hardships of technical advance without sharing in the triumphs.  (Ellul, 1964, p. 54)

Ellul’s (1964) insight reminds us that workers have historically shouldered the burdens of technological progress without reaping its benefits.  This imbalance is evident in modern workplace safety where compliance metrics overshadow the well-being of workers.  Systems can enforce compliance, but they fail to address the complexity of human suffering.

This introduces a moral tension.  While human beings are moral agents, capable of ethical reasoning and decision-making, systems—especially those governed by Technique—are inherently amoral.   Systems follow their own logic (design and affordances), prioritising efficiency and compliance without the capacity for moral judgement.  As a result, moral asymmetry arises, where human beings are reduced to data points and their dignity is subordinated to the imperatives of system optimisation.

This broader conflict between technological determinism and human ethics is not unique to safety systems, but it is particularly acute in contexts where workers’ well-being is at stake.  Safety systems may enforce compliance and track data, but they cannot understand or alleviate the deep, often invisible suffering that accompanies workplace injuries, especially when workers feel dehumanised by the metrics that dictate their value in the system.

Jung’s concept of the mandala provides a metaphor for restoring balance.  Jung introduced the mandala as a symbolic representation of the self and the universe.  In Jungian psychology, the mandala represents wholeness, integration, and the reconciliation of opposites, such as the conscious and unconscious mind.  It is a tool for achieving psychological balance (Jung 1969).  In a similar way, workplace safety systems should aim to integrate technical efficiency with human values, achieving a harmonious balance between efficiency and moral commitments.

By embracing moral symmetry and recognising the limitations of amoral systems, we can reclaim workplace safety from the impersonal grip of bureaucracy and data.  A truly human-centred approach affirms the dignity and humanity of every worker.  Sustainability, in this context, is found in restoring balance—by re-centring human values in safety systems, workers are treated as individuals with intrinsic worth, rather than as mere data points in a system.

The blind worship of Technique, as critiqued by Ellul, has permeated workplace safety systems, prioritising efficiency and control over the complexity of human existence.

The dehumanisation of workers – reduced to instruments of systems – reveal the false narrative of Technique, promising perfection through optimisation yet delivering alienation and the loss of agency.  As organisations continue to place their faith in the tempting allure of data and metrics, they distance themselves further from the wisdom and insight that can only come from human experience.

Yet, a new balanced approach is possible that involves Poetic sources of tackling risk. These include such methods as: conversations, listening, helping, semiotic sharing[6], decentralised approaches to observation and, person-centric ‘meeting’.

By embracing a human-centred approach, organisations can reclaim the dignity and essence of humanity that Technique suppressed.  Turning away from the idol of Technique and towards a system built on human values will allow both safety and the richness of human experience to be fully realised.

Conclusion

In this discussion paper I have raised the conceptual archetype of Technique as articulated by Ellul. Technique has a power unto itself as an energy that takes over and drives the human desire for perfection. This quest for total efficiency sacrifices the fallible human in its quest to save the human from injury.

This strange contradiction creates the emergence of dehumanisation by systems that in the end neglect the well-being of humans and, thereby harm the very persons those systems seek to save.

The paper proposes the need for balance in how people and organisations tackle risk, so that humans receive equal consideration in whatever methodology and method is created. The paper concludes by proposing that Poetic and Semiotic methods offer an opportunity for developing such balance. In order to understand what such methods would look like would be the subject of another discussion paper.

References

Accumulate Australia. (2024). Australia gambling statistics in 2024. Accumulate.  https://accumulate.com.au/australia-gambling-statistics/

Borys, D. (2012). The role of safe work method statements in the Australian construction industry. Safety Science, 50(2), 210-220. https://researchonline.federation.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:4230

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. Vintage Books.

Hume, D. (2007). An enquiry concerning human understanding (P. Millican, Ed.). Oxford University Press.

ICAM Australia. (n.d.). Data collection. ICAM Australia. https://icamaustralia.com.au/resources/data-collection#:~

=To%20aid%20Investigators%20and%20provide,up%20to%20the%20incident%2C%20etc

Jung, C. G. (1969). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Martin, M. (2023, July 29). Why is ICAM a valuable method of investigation? Proven Safety Solutions. https://www.provensafetysolutions.com.au/why-is-icam-is-a-valuable-method-of-investigation/#:~

=ICAM%20investigations%20go%20beyond%20identifying,and%20not%20just%20individual%20mistakes

Mas, A. (1949-50). L’Introduction du machinisme dans le travail administrative. Ses aspects technique, economique et social. Dunod.

Safe Work Australia. (2014, December). Safe work method statement for high risk construction work: Information sheet. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1703/information-sheet-safe-work-method-statement.pdf (accessed 9 September 2024).

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.

[1] The word ‘idol’ is intentionally religious in nature and also hints at Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols (https://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Nietzsche_files/Friedrich-Nietzsche-Twilight-of-the-Idols-or-How-to-Philosophize-With-the-Hammer-Translated-by-Richard-Polt.pdf). What Nietzsche declared was that the old truth was coming to an end. Idols are things worshiped through faith and empowered by faith and are attributed with symbolic power, even though they have none.

[2] All Poetics (not Poetry) involve anchoring to uncertainty, creativity and the emergence of e-motion and the subjectivities of human experience.

[3]  Safe Work Australia is a government agency tasked to develop national policy with the intent to improve work health and safety across Australia.  Policy is then enacted into law at the federal and state levels.

[4] It is common in Australia to use the terms SWMS and JSA (Job Safety Analysis) interchangeably.

[5] Psychosocial hazards are increasingly recognised under Australian Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) laws, making it a legal requirement for organisations to identify, manage, and mitigate these risks.  Recent regulations across several states and territories, including Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania, mandate the management of psychosocial risks in the workplace.  These regulations require businesses to eliminate or minimise psychosocial hazards so far as reasonably practicable, as part of their broader duty of care.

[6] Semiotic and Poetic methods rely on visual-verbal systems of engagement that are non-measurable that enhance trust, caring, understanding and meaning in tackling risk. Such an approach stands in stark contrast to the methodology and methods developed through Technique.