One of the most important things to know about culture is that it is beyond definition, proposition and mechanistic thinking. One can’t control, define or ‘engineer’ culture as if it is a ‘thing’. Indeed, this is one of the characteristics of discourse in safety about culture, usually coming from sources with no expertise in culture. And you can tell this by the language used.

Stating that culture is a ‘construct’ is like saying god is a ‘construct’ or reality is a ‘construct’. The choice of the metaphor ‘construct’ says much more about the source than a mature understanding of culture. The same applies when Safety declares that ‘structure creates culture’ (https://safetyrisk.net/structure-does-not-create-culture/ ). Both propositions indicate that the sources have little clue about culture, similarly little clue about Linguistics.

In order to speak about any-thing, we make it a thing. This doesn’t mean it is a ‘thing’ but rather there is a limit to language. Understanding the paradox of metaphor (Metaphors We Live By) and language is foundational to discussion of any-thing.

When we look to language as a source of understanding we must also understand that there is much in life that cannot be communicated by language. Culture is one of those ‘things’. Many of the things we experience in life are beyond words and language. This is why we often turn to Poetics, Music, para-linguistics, Semiotics and aesthetics to express knowing and being. If we don’t understand this we come out with metaphors like ‘construct’ and ‘structure’ to explain culture.

Safety struggles with Linguistics because it’s not part of its worldview, just as Semiotics and Poetics are foreign. Most often we see Safety sprouting forth on matters like culture, that it doesn’t understand, using ‘constructs’ like engineering metaphors to try to explain the inexplicable. This is why Safety confuses culture with systems and behaviours (what we do around here).

The first rule about culture is to make sure you don’t turn to Safety to learn about culture.

Yes, we do have to communicate about culture but this is best done outside the bounds of Rationalism, Behaviourism and Engineering, the worldviews that dominate safety. You can’t apply these Safety ‘constructs’ to an understanding of culture, mythology or historiography. The omission of any discussion of Religion in relation to culture espoused by Safety demonstrates, it knows little about culture, mythology and history. There is little one can understand about mythology without expertise in Religion. Such expertise doesn’t come from engineering.

Anyone with any expertise in culture (eg. Anthropology) knows that Religion and belief are the starting place for understanding, not so Safety. Culture is not ‘constructed’, it has always emerged from ‘being’. One really can’t understand culture without a foundation in existentialist, phenomenologist and religious knowing. Trying to explain culture is like trying to explain evolution or ecology, Allostasis or Quantum.  The same applies for myth, religion and history. Trying to explain in text the experience of life and being is like trying to explain faith and belief.

Similarly, culture is not a ‘property’. Again, a materialist metaphor applied to the non-material. Culture also has very little to do with systems. All of this is Safety struggling to understand what it doesn’t understand from the constraints of a Safety worldview. This is what happens when Safety is locked in its own bubble and lacks any Transdisciplinary intelligence. This is why the mono-disciplinary AIHS BoK starts from the premise that safety knows all about everything. This is why Safety is so religious about what it knows because it knows so little about Religion. You only have to watch ‘The Spirit of Zero’ from global Safety to comprehend this. When your lens on the world is safety, then your world-view is myopic.

One of the reasons why Safety is so ignorant about culture is, all that it ‘constructs’ as belief about culture emerges from its own blindness and ignorance. This is one of the characteristics of Safety (culture). This is how Safety ends up speaking about safety as ‘saving lives’. This is how Safety ends up with a list of ‘10 Cardinal rules’. This is how safety becomes ‘god’ to Safety.

When you think culture is engineered as a ‘construct’, ‘property’ or ‘structure’ (methodology) then whatever method emerges (as an ideology), will seek to tackle culture from such an ideology. No wonder Safety fails miserably when it tries to affect culture.

If you want to learn about a Transdisciplinary approach to culture in a positive and constructive way, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/culture-leadership-program-unit-15-overseas-elearning/