I remember as a child being insulted by a teacher who called me a ‘dreamer’ in front of a class, simply because I was not focused on a task as he wanted. How fascinating that in our western society that we would want to use such a metaphor to insult someone. Yet, in Indigenous, First Nations People and non-Western cultures dreaming is valued. Why is this so?

What springs to Mind is that we have been seduced by the false claims of Science. If we don’t understand something and have no evidence to explain it, then it must be rejected. Indeed, we know now that the construction of the ‘scientific method’ itself is a myth (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-and-the-myth-of-scientific-method/ ). Myth is not fairy tales or falsehood but rather what people want to believe through the symbols and narratives they construct. These myths give them meaning but they don’t conform to any sense of scientific verification. For example, there are many in the USA who think Donald Trump is ‘the Messiah’. There are many that think that paperwork in safety works! There are many who believe the marketing of so-called safety gurus! It’s all of the same stuff. This is the shape of belief.

Recent research into dreaming demonstrates how little we know of the human unconscious. This also gives us significant insight into how people construct belief and about the power of the human unconscious.

You would think that the industry of safety that worries about such things as awareness, concentration and perception might be interested in lucid dreaming and belief. Apparently not. Safety would much rather invent an AI bollard (https://safetyrisk.net/an-ethic-for-innovation/) than try to understand persons and being.

We know a lot about lucid dreaming and why people ‘lose concentration’. Yet, in all the safety literature that is preoccupied with blaming and not blaming, there is no discussion of human ‘being’, the nature of awareness or scapegoating. Similarly, there is no discussion of ethics or the nature of power in these texts. For those interested in blaming, perhaps a start with Gerard’s The Scapegoat would be helpful

What a strange industry that wants to count hazards and objects but doesn’t want to understand the nature of being! What a strange industry that wants to regurgitate language of ‘Just Culture’ but doesn’t want to articulate an understanding of Justice or Culture. Most of the discourse on Just Culture in safety is simply more mythology.

In SPoR, we are most interested in the nature of persons and how social arrangements affect decision making. The philosophies that undergird SPoR are anchored in Phenomenology and Existentialist methodologies. This takes us light years away from the Positivist and Behaviourist fixations of the safety industry. SPoR doesn’t disagree with safety on some whim but rather has a completely different worldview that safety, including so called ‘safety differently’.

I have no doubt that when work is dull, repetitive and continuous that many workers enter a state of lucid dreaming. I remember when I was teaching in High School that daydreaming was common. Children were present in body but their Mind isn’t. How interesting if such daydreaming is done on a forklift or driving a truck!

I certainly know that when I awake from a dream that I remember it and then can re-enter it when I go back to sleep.

There is so much research now into dreaming

Yet, where in risk and safety is this discussed?

I have a friend who works with hypnotism and people addicted to smoking who want to quit, and she has very significant success with stopping smoking for those who can lucid dream.

I think what holds Safety back is its fixation with Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM). We see this in everything about the AIHS BoK and the way Safety conducts investigations. Safety is so good at proving its own assumptions but so poor at exploring what it doesn’t know in other disciplines. How interesting that safety wants to talk about innovation and creativity de-coupled from any discussion about dreaming??? Yet, any composer, song writer, literary genius, visionary or inventor will testify about the way dreams were a part of their innovation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P3UpuGnYKA&t=1s). Those who have vision, dream.

I read with interest Gerd Giggerenzer’s latest book on intuition and his work on ‘gut feelings’  and couldn’t help but think, why is Safety not interested in this? Why is Safety not interested in the nature of belief? Surely, if risk is about a leap of faith, surely Safety would want to study it? Apparently not. Just keep counting injury rates, complete the paperwork and market innovation and all will be well.

For those interested in belief systems and why people do what they do, (even though it doesn’t work) perhaps read the classic book by Rokeach (1960) The Open and Closed Mind, Investigations into the Nature of belief Systems and Personality Systems.

Where will you get such research and study in risk and safety? Who in safety talks about the nature of personhood, an ethic of risk. personality and human decision making?

We will be exploring some of this in the SPoR Conference in May (https://spor.com.au/canberra-convention/).