Then we have the whole ‘safety saves’ discourse and language about safety ‘heaven’ (https://safetyrisk.net/heaven-n-hell-and-the-safety-religion/). Coupled to this is the extensive metaphysical language about zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-metaphysics-of-safety/). We also have safety not differently sources talking about atonement (https://safetyrisk.net/the-theology-of-blame-from-safety-science/) and spiritual resilience and, HOP talking about spirituality (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7204134654294048769/) at the same time enjoying the language of ‘dumb’ because blame fixes nothing? Yet, none of these sources have any expertise in theology, that’s the safety way. If you want to know about theology, culture or ethics, ask a safety engineer.
None of this discourse helps safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-language-of-saving-lives-doesnt-help-safety/). Indeed, the more Safety enters into myths of salvation and spiritual discourse, the more it contradicts its own logic about science. And there is still no articulated stance on ethics nor articulation of a worldview. Yet, the very foundation of safety rests on ‘faith’ in others but we never talk about it.
Coupled to all this language are behaviourist and engineering approaches to risk that use language of certainty, science and culture.
All of this demonstrates an industry divided in itself. And despite all the spin about ‘new view’, there are no methods to help escape from this malaise.
Even a basic understanding and sensitivity towards language could help address this schism. Similarly, a basic sense of theology would help sensitize the industry to its own contradictory discourse.
If you want to learn a little about Theology and be sensitized to its discourse then we have a workshop you may enjoy (https://cllr.com.au/product/theology-and-risk-unit-18/). The workshop will conduct 5 zoom sessions and will focus on an understanding of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/), suffering, harm and hermeneutics. The 5 session course will cost $250. The course will commence in the second week in November on a day and time negotiated by the group.
The course is designed for novice learners who are interested in critical thinking about risk.
You can register here: admin@spor.com.au
BTW, theological thinking has nothing to do with the Bible but everything to do with metaphysical discourse. Such a study would also help one realise that the ethic of the safety industry is about Natural Law and Kant. Again, very theological notions of moral philosophy.
Of course, any study in fallibility will complete smash the nonsense ideology of zero.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- When Risk Doesn’t Make Sense - December 7, 2024
- How to Enable Unethical Practice in Safety - December 7, 2024
- Mapping an Ethic of Risk - December 6, 2024
- Principles for Safety - December 6, 2024
- Causation Myths, Stop Looking for Linear and Root Cause - December 4, 2024
Trevor T Sterling says
Have you had to address senior management’s fear of the word ENSURER being used within HSMS doctrine?
Trevor Sterling
Corporate Health and Safety Leader, Thurber Engineering Ltd. Canada
Rob Long says
Trevor, you are right about doctrine. You could also use another theological term – dogma.
Yes, I see many executives who have many irrational fears about risk and the law, mostly based on myth. Greg Smith is very good in tackling this too.
It’s very challenging to convince executives that their beliefs are irrational myth. Most are dominated by one particular personality type and tend to be from engineering and behaviourist ideology.
The use of assurance and other words of theological certainty is just part of the safety delusion.
So few have any knowledge of linguistics, semiotics or discourse and so end up constructing problems for themselves.