It is so amusing watching organisations have a bet each way on zero. This is how one plays the religious ‘agnostic’ card to argue that zero is some kind of ‘global by-line’. This is the kind of religious language one uses to claim that zero is not religious.
Such a strategy enables fraudulence to thrive, whilst at the same time playing the ‘zero-sum game’.
The same logic sounds like:
- ‘I’m not a Catholic, I just attend Mass’
- ‘I’m not an alcoholic, I just drink occasionally’
- ‘I don’t endorse violence, I just play war games’
- I’m not really greedy, I just love money’
We all know what hypocrisy looks and sounds like.
The AIHS spruiks this kind of spin-gobbledygook as is evidenced by the use of religious language in denial of the religiosity of zero. When you have no foundational ethic, all of this ‘double speak’ and hypocrisy is normalised. Such is the culture of safety. What you do is, state the language as a ‘cop-out’ then, claim that it’s not a cop-out.
When you sponsor an ideology (https://safety2023sydney.com/sponsorship), present at a ‘zero event’ and are willingly identified with a zero event, it is no ‘global by-line’ and there is no agnosticism. Look at the companies that are sponsors and they either identify with zero or are playing hypocrisy.
If you happily identity with a ‘zero event’, then you validate the ideology and commitment to Zero. So, amusing to see a supposed ‘safety differently’ group in the mix, says it all.
There is no doubt about it: safety is zero and zero is safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-global-zero-event-this-is-safety/ ).
Just remember, this congress in Sydney in November is NOT marketed as a ‘safety event’, it is marketed as a ‘zero event’. Such is the dominance of the grand delusion of the safety industry (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/).
Any language of ‘agnosticism’, ‘indifference’ and ‘distancing’ with this event is pure fraudulence, what Safety is so good at.
Just look at the list of sponsors and presenters all identified and anchored to this ‘zero event’. It is clear, all validate zero or, are hypocrites.
And, don’t give me this nonsense that you join organisations to change them from within. There is no evidence for this myth. This is NOT how change happens in organising.
I know,
- ‘Let’s join a coven and evangelise them to Jesus’.
- ‘Let’s join the Labor Party and convince them to be Liberal’.
- ‘Let’s join the zero cult and convince them it’s a cult’
The whole purpose of organising in institutions is to build resistance to change from within. All the evidence demonstrates that this ideology of change from within is a myth. And, who are the best presenters of this myth? Safety and chemical engineers with no expertise in culture.
And, don’t give me this snipping from the sidelines stuff. I was in the SIA as a Fellow for 8 years and in all that time there was no zero but they still had no interest in anything to do with Social Psychology. The moment the SIA went to zero, I was out.
So, I wonder if there is any problem with sponsoring a strip club or porn business and claiming no anchoring to identity? Of course not!
My Dad use to say often that ‘you can’t run with the hares and hunt with the hounds’ and he was right. It’s pretty straight forward logic, but something Safety doesn’t want to know.
If you actually have ethical principles or moral methodology, you are sensitised to identity and anchoring. It is why many companies have exited from promoting cigarettes and alcohol in sports and soon we will see the same with gambling advertising in sports (https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/documents/350/Implicit-associations-between-gambling-and-sport.pdf). It doesn’t matter whether one plays the game about explicit support, implicit support is just as powerful.
Remember when The Australian Netball team refused sponsorship from Gina Rhinehart?. Netball Australia knows, as we all do, it you take the money you are also anchored to what comes with it – racism!
The foundation for all of this is: intelligence about ideology, semiotics, linguistics, critical thinking, ethics and messaging – all things that Safety continues to show no interest.
If you are interested in a positive approach to safety that doesn’t play games about zero and brutalism, you can study the free Introduction to Social psychology of Risk course here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/4233556 or the free Due Diligence course here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/4883640
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
Matthew Thorne says
So to truly reject Zero, you must first join Zero?
I duo not need to be in the room with a philosophy to be able to spurn, reject or argue with it. Isn’t this what having an education is about?
Rob Long says
I tried to join the local feminist gym but they wouldn’t let me in. The whole purpose of organising is to to reduce equivocality – Weick 101 from 1978.