Metaphor is the description of something by what it is not. It creates a tension between two terms (literal and figurative) that requires a theory of interpretation, a hermeneutic. Similarly with symbols. All semiotics require a hermeneutic of interpretation. Symbols are not objective. We learn the meaning of metaphor, symbol and myth through culture. We even interpret our understanding of culture through our sub-culture. This is why the Engineering-Behaviourist paradigm doesn’t understand culture.
The more Safety seeks the myth of objectivity, the less it will find it. The quest for certainty and absolute definition, is challenged by metaphor. This is why Safety Engineers who write about culture seeking propositions to control it, end up not wanting to talk about it.
Culture and myth are beyond propositional thinking. One can’t understand myth, semiotics and culture through the paradigm of rationalism. Similarly with metaphor.
A myth is neither a falsehood, fantasy, fairy tale or folklore. A myth is a narrative created to find meaning and purpose in being, confirmed by a semiotic. A myth is beyond a rational or irrational understanding. Myth is essentially aRational.
For example: This is how we observe the myth of the Swiss-Cheese myth generated by James Reason. A myth is not controlled by definition or propositional thinking but establishes its own truth (consistent with itself) that is beyond the rationality of evidence or the myth of scientific objectivity. The Swiss-Cheese is a semiotic that Reason developed to project the idea of linear causality, as explained by his narrative attached to his semiotic. Similarly with Heinrich’s dominoes. Metaphor, symbol and myth all merge to confirm the myth but it is not true in the sense that it is supported by evidence.
This is of course a huge problem for an industry that seeks absolute certainty where there is none (https://safetyrisk.net/radical-uncertainty/). The very use of the word ‘risk’ is an admission of subjective experience.
Paul Ricoeur in The Rule of Metaphor (https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/1192483/mod_resource/content/1/Ricoeur%2C%20P.%2C%20The%20Rule%20of%20Metaphor.pdf), argues that ‘symbols give rise to thought’. This is such a helpful way of understanding why semiotics, myth and metaphor are critical in understanding how people think about risk.
When we look at the symbols of Safety (eg. bow-tie, risk-matrix, Bradley Curve, dominoes etc) we see how Safety ‘thinks’. This is how symbols are used to create myths. The symbol substantiates the myth, despite the fact that the semiotic used has no scientific basis in evidence. Once the myth is accepted by Safety it is declared true to itself but has no objective reality. Then Safety projects validity onto the risk matrix, when there is none. The risk matrix is not a scientific tool indeed, Greg Smith declares it one of the most dangerous methods in safety!
In the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) we acknowledge the importance of studying Linguistics (https://cllr.com.au/product/linguistics-flyer-unit-21/) to help understand how Safety speaks. In SPoR, we explore the nature of Poetics (https://cllr.com.au/product/poetics-flyer-module-22/) in order to understand non-rationalist, non-behaviourist and non-engineering ways of tackling risk.
Indeed, understanding culture, semiotics, myth and metaphor is a wicked problem that requires a Transdisciplinary approach. This is why SPoR accepts the validity of disciplines outside of the worldview of Safety.
It is only when one embraces disciplines other than safety that one can begin to understand Safety. It just takes a leap of faith to do so. There is no financial impediment for doing so. SPoR is a methodology and a has methods (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/). These methods are positive, constructive and practical.
If you are interested in such a leap you can start by reading any number of free books on SPoR: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
Free videos: https://vimeo.com/cllr
Free courses: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3949916; https://vimeo.com/showcase/4883640
Or Free conversations on risk: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199
It’s not too late to join us face-to-face at the SPoR Convention in Canberra in two weeks: https://spor.com.au/canberra-convention/ just email: rob@spor.com.au for your place.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Podcast – What Jung Can Contribute to Safety – Part One - September 12, 2024
- Relationships as Therapy for Mental Health, A Note for Safety - September 10, 2024
- Cultivating Resilience - September 8, 2024
- No Place for Military Metaphors in Safety - September 6, 2024
- The Influence of C.G. Jung in SPoR - September 5, 2024
Matt Thorne says
In a VUCA world why is it that people look for certainty and order, at the expense of Risk? People’s understanding of Risk as a negative drives them away from understanding and learning.
When we were in Chennai in March, the one thing we had to accept immediately was the chaos, in comparison to what was familiar to us. Our Westerner thoughts could not bring order to this, but to the locals, this was everyday living.
Looking forward to the convention in Canberra where learning and discussion will be the order of the day!
Rob Long says
Matt, in the mono-disciplinary world of safety the arrogance of Hopkins rules that safety can override culture. He’d last about 3 second in India and quickly be identified as a colonizer- safety imperialist. As long as Safety remains in its little cocoon it will make the profane sacred and the sacred profane. It will make culture into systems and decision making into behaviours. and of course, all without any methods to change anything. Yeah, Punk Rock Safety!