When the English first landed in Australia, they defined this new world as ‘terra nullius’ (without humans). They saw the dark-skinned animals as ‘animals’ because they had no written text and a verbal language that was not understood. Of course, they were wrong. First nations peoples had a complex system of semiotic communication . It’s just that the English didn’t define civilization semiotically.
The Australian Aborigines had no philosophy of possession as the English did, nor wore clothes as the English. Indeed, the Colonialists/Imperialists recognised nothing familiar in the Worldview of the First Nations peoples. They therefore assumed they could take what they wanted, exploit how they needed and conquer as they wished. This is what happens when you believe that one culture has the right to over-ride another culture as Hopkins supposes the culture of Safety has (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/). This assertion is nothing more than cultural arrogance and an imperialist worldview.
Safety does not give you the right to over-ride other cultures.
How surprise the English were when the Indigenous people fought back! (https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/4._how_did_aboriginal_australians_resist_british_colonisation.pdf). Even today the Frontier War History is suppressed by a white colonialist view of Historiography (https://www.commonground.org.au/article/the-frontier-wars). And we also have ignorant arrogant right wing nationalist views that call such a History, ‘woke!’
This is the kind of nonsense one gets when one’s narrow worldview is anchored in its own bubble of ignorance. This is what Safety does when it publishes thinking on: Ethics, Anthropology, Linguistics, Language, Socialitie, History and Culture. Didn’t you know, safety culture is the source of all expertise on everything.
The worldview of the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) is nothing like the Behaviourist/Scientist/Engineering worldview of safety. It is a Semiotic/Poetic worldview that gives meaning to a worldview not recognised by Safety. The so-called S2, SD, HOP, NV and RE fads are of the same worldview (Behaviourist/Scientist/Engineering). Worldviews are not changed by the intensity of swear words one can muster (Punk Rock Safety). Saying f#ck more often than others doesn’t change a Worldview. The focus is still the same, focusing on all the same old favourites and topics.
A worldview is determined by its methodology (philosophy) and methods (https://safetyrisk.net/hey-safety-whats-your-worldview/).
In SPoR, there is no focus at all on any of the traditional ideas of safety. You can read about this worldview here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-social-psychology-of-risk-handbook/
The SPoR, the worldview is anchored to a positive, practical and constructive alternative to the idea that safety is about counting injury rates and marketing a focus on regulations and systems in new spin.
The trouble is, to step outside of the traditional safety worldview is risky (https://safetyrisk.net/stepping-outside-your-worldview-take-a-risk/). And this is why traditional safety is so attracted to the spin and slogans of the S2, SD, HOP, NV and RE fads. No paradigm shift is needed to adopt HOP slogans, everything stays the same. Same systems, same Discourse (of power) and same worldview.
When you don’t threaten a worldview, everything can remain comfortable with the same systems, same discourse and same methods. Just get out some smoke and mirrors and market to the industry that it’s all now ‘different’. Yet, there is no new Ethic or Methodology in any of this, it’s primarily Safety Theatre. It’s a performance.
SPoR offers an alternative worldview that is just as valid as the traditional worldview (https://safetyrisk.net/can-there-be-other-valid-worldviews-than-safety/) it’s just that it cannot be understood through the lens of the old paradigm. Safety doesn’t understand risk semiotically and so it examines the SPoR worldview and determines that it is anti-safety.
This is no different to why the English didn’t understand the First Nations peoples of Australia. You can’t understand an alternative worldview from the security of your own worldview. One has to move away from that view to embrace the possibility that a different world exists.
If you are ready to make a move and want to know about this alternative SPoR worldview you are welcome to join the first free SPoR module for 2025: https://safetyrisk.net/free-first-module-for-2025-embodiment-and-risk/
Hardly anything in the safety industry is free, everyone is out to make a buck from the next fad. Not so in SPoR. Nearly everything we do in SPoR is free (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/ ). We try to eliminate any impediment that would hinder people from studying SPoR. This alone is clear evidence of our different worldview.
Simply apply by writing to admin@cllr.com.au
We already have a group of 50 attending from all over the globe for the first module but there is room for more.
For those in the USA. You have a wonderful opportunity to attend the first SPoR Conference to be held in Huston Texas in May 2025: https://safetyrisk.net/social-psychology-of-risk-comes-to-the-usa/ Again, just email here: matthew@riskdiversity.com.au to register.
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below