In this blog we look at another philosopher who has had a huge influence on SPoR, Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005). For interest, Emmanuel Macron worked for Ricouer for two years and shares aspects of Ricoeur’s philosophy.
Ricoeur is a French philosopher who brings us into the dialectic/tensions of being and living. Ricoeur called these tensions
‘fault lines’, a wonderful metaphor for understanding where we sit in the ambiguities of life. You can read more on Ricoeur here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/
When one moves from the delusions of the exclusive absolute and into the discomfort of dialectic, one feels the full force of uncertainty, questioning and the wisdom of fallibility. Indeed, Ricouer’s book Fallible Man is critical for understanding the nature of human personhood. Two other works that are critical are: The Symbolism of Evil and The Rule of Metaphor. Both of these works have much to say to an industry consumed with the delusions of certainty, control (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) and the fear of Risk.
Ricoeur brings us into the nature of how humans are known through language and symbol. As he states: ‘we are not so much the creators of symbols as their creatures’. This includes, the symbolic speech of metaphor. Both symbols and language/metaphor are interpreted and not objective. All language and symbols have multiple meanings and are known through context, culture and being. For this reason, Ricouer’s primary focus was on the theory of interpretation – hermeneutics.
None of these philosophers are easy to read nor understand, but this doesn’t mean they are not helpful. Despite the fact that their work is confrontational, disturbing and challenging, the reward is discovered in how they liberate us to the wisdom of fallibility and the meaning of personhood.
Like Ellul, Buber and Kierkegaard, Ricoeur brings us into the nature of human subjectivity. Indeed, as these philosophers argue; the delusions of objectivity remove us from life and living, being and doing. This also includes the myth of scientific objectivity.
Ricoeur, like Ellul, Buber and Kierkegaard, deconstruct the arguments of those who lead down the path of certainty, objectivity and Technique. This pathway, may start out with admirable objectives, but leads a trajectory to dehumanisation.
It is by embracing our subjectivity that we encounter the riddles of our existence.
Another aspect of Ricouer’s philosophy regards the nature of text, symbol and the way language is embodied. This anchors to the real world where moral and ethical enactment is considered through what we say and symbolise. It is in our metaphors and symbols that we observe what people believe and what ethic guides their actions. This also shares thinking in common with Halliday (Language as Social Semiotic) that persons are living text.
So, we see, our symbols and text matter. The safety language of ‘zero’, ‘safety is a you make’, ‘all accidents are preventable’, ‘blame fixes nothing’ and many other slogans and symbols that are used to hide their philosophy, lead to the dehumanising of persons.
Calling out language that dehumanises persons is what philosophers like Ellul, Kierkegaard, Buber and Ricoeur do. For in the end, what is the point of harming people to achieve an outcome of safety? What is the point of Safety, if it brutalises persons, to get low injury rates?
Ricoeur, like Ellul, Kierkegaard and Buber, argue that we observe what humans say and do best in Poetics (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/poetics-and-risk-feeling-into-being/). That is, in the metaphor and symbols of Safety, we see what it really believes.
It is in symbols and metaphor that we see the evidence of what is believed (philosophy). This is where symbols of swiss-cheese, bow-tie, dominoes, curves, pyramids and the language of Reason’s ‘violations’ stand out as evidence of how Safety ‘thinks’. None of these symbols or language is ‘objective’, scientific or helpful for tackling risk.
All of these symbols, text and discourse, is just the indoctrination of Safety taught in a curriculum that seeks to convince that it is objective. We see this evidenced in all the common methods for incident investigation (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/seek-investigations-a-semiotic-method/). We see this in the rituals and myths of Hierarchies of Control.
In SPoR, we use the symbols of the hyphen and mandala to help people wrestle with the dialectic/tensions of life. These symbols accentuate the meaning of fallibility and the tensions that Ricoeur, Ellul and Kierkegaard discuss. Sitting in the ‘fault lines’ of life is an uncomfortable space. Imagining that risk and life is being ‘controlled’ by safety myths and rituals is delusion.
If however, we are able to face up to the realities of subjectivity and fallibility, we can be liberated to the wisdom and discomfort in paradox and the reality of not knowing. This is how Risk Makes Sense (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risk-makes-sense/).
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- What Can Weick Offer Safety - April 12, 2026
- All Injuries are Preventable and Other Silly Safety Sayings - April 10, 2026
- Social Psychology of Risk – Body of Knowledge - April 10, 2026
- Free Workshops June – Weick and HROing - April 10, 2026
- What Are Moral Hazards? - April 8, 2026
Rob Sams says
I’ll try again to comment on the blog….. which I understood was the reason for posting on this site, and the reason there is a section for comments, but it seems only if they are endorsed by the author…..?
I’m trying to work out how that model fits with the points made in the post about calling out differences and challenging ideas posted. It seems to me to be at odds with the blog post that if one does not fully agree with the author, or if the comment isn’t to the author’s liking, it is removed.
But I do get that this page is filled with irony.
For example, the irony of this line from the post, made with such certainty… “It is by embracing our subjectivity that we encounter the riddles of our existence.”