The word ‘culture’ has an agri-cultural origin and extends back thousands of years. We all accept the language and notion of agriculture as it denotes growing and living on the land. Before written text there are extensive semiotic and oral representations for the ethos of activity in and on the land. The Romans used the word cultura and commonly gave a prefix such as beekeeping (apicultura) or fruit farming (arborum cultura).
The word ‘culture’ also appears in Roman literature in a religious context. In Marcus Tullius Cicero it occurs repeatedly, especially in his speeches. Culture was understood as service to a god and this meaning was carried forward into early Christian writings. The official Roman cult of Mithras/Eleusis of which there are hundreds of archaeological sites attest to the cult-ure of Mithras. The best example of a Mithraeum is preserved in London (https://www.londonmithraeum.com/). We know so much about the culture of this Roman cult.
In Cicero, he speaks not just of culture as applied to the physical world but also to ‘the soul’ (animi cultura). Here Cicero applies the idea of cult-ivation to labour of the soul. So, you not only cult-ivate the ground, you cult-ivate the soul. This idea of the soul put forward by Cicero did not mean either ‘spirit’ (Plato) or ‘substance’ (Aristotle) but rather the whole person. This also applied to the idea of philosophy (Philo + Sophia) as the culture intelligence of the person/being. This idea can be traced back to the 6th Century BC. Philosophy for Cicero (a stoic) was not about theory but practice – what one cult-ivated. In classical Greco-Roman times culture was about living and being a person in the world. So, the foundations of culture are discovered in the nature of being, belief, faith and agri-culture.
So, we see the roots in understanding culture are ecological (from nature/earth) and focused on personhood. In the First Century those who were experts in culture were the Philosophers and Theologians.
Jump forward a few thousand years and culture is still understood in this way. The experts in understanding culture today are those in: Ethnography, Ethnology, Cultural Anthropology, Religious Studies, Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture.
The core meaning of the word ‘ethos’ means ethic (philosophy of being) of a group.
The place to start in understanding culture is in the nature of human being and personhood.
When one studies First Nations culture, one studies their way of living and being (their ethos). What is it to be a First Nations person? Everyone in First Nations Culture accepts that there is such an ontology (theory of being) as First Nations Culture. You don’t study First Nations culture by getting out books, rather you ‘walk on country’. First Nations Australians didn’t construct text to understand themselves but rather are an oral, Poetic and Semiotic civilization and culture that are the longest continuous living culture on the planet (at least 65,000 years).
When I worked as Manager Youth, Family and Community Service in the ACT in 2002-2003 it was commonly accepted that there was a ‘youth culture’, ‘pop culture’ and ‘counter culture’. There is no debate in these sectors about these as a reality that gives meaning to ‘being’ in those cultures.
In Religious Studies there is no debate about Hindu Culture or Christian Culture. Indeed, we study the characteristics of each culture to better understand what is considered personhood and being in that group.
Why does any of this matter for safety?
The idea of ‘types’ of cultures is accepted and been around for thousands of years, it’s just Safety that debates this idea that it doesn’t have a culture. Good olde Safety thinks culture is a ‘construct’, a ‘thing’ and a ‘property’. These are the metaphors we expect from an industry founded on Behaviourism, Rationalism and Positivism. This is what we expect from Engineers who know everything about culture. Hey, but in order to be properly educated, don’t talk about it!
What we also know about this so-called debate in safety about culture is that it doesn’t really want to face up to itself. The last thing Safety wants to admit is that its culture is toxic! But its culture is clear and on full show (https://safetyrisk.net/if-you-want-to-know-about-culture-dont-start-with-safety/). The evidence is overwhelming.
In SPoR, we use the model, metaphor and semiotic of the Culture Cloud to endeavour to understand culture. This is illustrated at Figure 1. Culture Cloud.
Figure 1. Culture Cloud.
This semiotic is not intended to be the beginning and end or final model on culture but is a semiotic representation that extends way beyond anything one will find in any safety presentation or writing on culture. It is also complemented by Poetics, existential and semiotic experiences common in SPoR studies/research.
From here, we can explore the characteristics of safety culture. We know:
- Worldview: Behaviourism, rationalism and Positivism.
- Habits and heuristics: Injury and hazard counting.
- Behaviours: Policing PPE, bullying, only Safety knows.
- Rituals: Risk Assessments, SWMS, safety minutes, toolbox talks, checklisting.
- Stressors: Preaching zero while not believing it, being rejected by workers.
- Attitudes, Values, Beliefs: Zero and fallibility denial, resilience is engineered.
- Ethics: Deontological ethics, zero=safety.
- History: Heinrich etc is still taught in safety.
- Knowledge: Speaking from ignorance, mono-disciplinarity.
- Heroes and Villains: Gurus and heroes abound seeking their bounty in dollars.
- Language: Hazards, people as hazards, systems and controlling hazards.
- Silences: Personhood, ethics, care, helping and power.
- Metaphors: Mechanical, measurable, performance.
- Semiotics: Signs, PPE, policies, posters, silly curves and triangles.
- Myths: Objectivity, investigations, legal expertise.
- Slogans: ‘All accidents are preventable’, ‘safety is a choice you make’
- Religion: Zero is god, zero vision, injury/harm is evil, safety is heaven, safety saves, cardinal rules.
There’s a brief culture of safety snapshot.
And the fruits of Safety’s agri-culture are in plain view:
- In my own jurisdiction (ACT) the regulator is in ‘damage control’ for bullying and harassment (https://the-riotact.com/toxic-worksafe-threatens-staff-with-dismissal-for-gossiping-employee-says/788355).
- The regulator in NZ found to be corrupt (https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350332750/worksafes-whakaari-investigator-said-chopper-companies-shouldnt-be-charged?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1-q8WXEVtaFOd0UI4Ps8oR5BObQ_cAglFCTuWN7xdoQ11j6VIIaLYTxKo_aem_zQVR_89BGRdRYbPp-xKVfw)
- The regulators are sponsors of zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/) and in each state have previously faced reviews for bullying, corruption (https://www.themandarin.com.au/96333-regulating-the-regulators-ibac-warns-of-corruption-risks/) and harassment. The same organisations responsible for psychosocial hazard reporting!
- The CFMEU is corrupt (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/17/afp-asked-to-investigate-cfmeu-corruption-allegations-as-independent-administrator-to-be-appointed ).
It doesn’t take much digging to discover the culture of safety, perhaps read Rosa’s Carillo’s book (https://safetyrisk.net/ohs-voices-from-the-resistance-rosa-carrillo/) to get a deeper snapshot of what safety people say about Safety.
And, if you want to trace back to the cause of the evolution of this culture, the source is the ideology of Zero! (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Hey Safety, What’s Your Worldview? - December 12, 2024
- Tier One Miners, Psychosocial Risk and Zero - December 12, 2024
- More Nonsense from the EHS Insight – Zero Injury Cultures??? - December 8, 2024
- Safety is an Art - December 7, 2024
- When Risk Doesn’t Make Sense - December 7, 2024
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below