Safety 2 (Hollnagel) talks about imagination but never defines what it means indeed, in traditional safety, Imagination is often viewed as an enemy of conformance. This is also the case with the so called ‘new view’ of safety, that has no new methods nor the imagination apparently to develop them. So, back to traditional systems, performance and safety functionalism (FRAM).
We know from Imagination Studies that the Imagination is coupled to: dreaming, creativity, innovation, figurative thinking, musicality, Poetics and discovery. If you want to see a historical analysis of Imagination then read this: Idalovichi, I., (2023) What is Imagination? An Interdisciplinary Study on Imagination in the Domains of Philosophy, Myth and Religion, Mathematics and Science, Mind and Brain, Aesthetics, Ethics, Poetry and Literature Volume 1. NIV Books, London. This is a brilliant chronical of what great thinkers have thought about Imagination over the centuries.
Imagination is best thought of as Archetype, as something that has an energy and force of its own. Indeed, Imagination functions unconsciously in every perception, experience as it mediates in metaphor, figurative language and memory. The mystery of metaphor and how it automatically infuses what we communicate unconsciously is just like Imagination as it couples and de-couples us from reality in a micro-second. Like metaphor, we are not conscious of Imagination in its automaticity.
We know from Childhood Studies that the Imagination is intuitive and coupled to play. We also know from studies in Schooling that systemic education gradually quashes the imagination over time so that STEM subjects dominate the High School curriculum and that disciplines like Art, Drama and Music are given minimum time in the curriculum. Yet, when people have free time what do they do with it? The seek to nourish Imagination.
Soon, the SPoR book on Poetics will be published for free download (Poetics and Risk, Feeling into Being). In this book, ten authors from over the globe write about their experiences with Poetics and Risk. Poetics is about all that cannot be measured yet is brought into being by the human imagination. In Poiesis, we bring forth, we create and we make known.
The book on Poetics and Risk is complemented by a podcast and video series. These can be found here:
Imagination generally occurs in five sequences: mimicry; abstraction/ decoupling; recombination; expression; and social feedback
One of the most powerful stages of Imagination is that of ‘decoupling’. This means stepping away from the known, tradition and orthodoxy and, moving to a space of risk, the unknown and discovery. This often happens semiotically and poetically that is, we envision through images, symbols, figurative language and myth, to imagine. See further, Larsen, S., (2012) The Mythic Imagination, The Quest for meaning Through Personal Mythology. Inner Traditions International, Vermont. (https://archive.org/details/mythicimaginatio00lars).
Mythology and myths are NOT about fables, fairy tales or things untrue. Myths are a semiotic reality where symbols, metaphor and narrative meet in Imagination. In this way, the myth is believed as true, anchored to semiotics. Myths construct their own reality as anchored to semiotics. We often find in Imagination that dreams, music and emotions blend through musicology, rhythmic, metaphoric and lyrical thinking. This is how Kierkegaard wrote.
Imagination is primarily the ‘work’ of the unconscious. See further: Johnson, R., (2006) Inner Work, Using Dreams and Active Imagination for Personal Growth, Pagrave. New York. A brilliant book. A free download here: (https://ia601600.us.archive.org/9/items/InnerWorkUsingDreamsActiveImaginationForPersonalGrowth/Inner%20Work%20-%20Using%20Dreams%20%26%20Active%20Imagination%20For%20Personal%20Growth.pdf)
The trouble for Safety 1&2 is that Imagination cannot be ‘controlled’ or ‘harnessed’ to use Dekker language. Perhaps this is why no-one in S1 or 2 talk about it. Imagination refuses to be ‘harnessed’ or ‘controlled’, this is why traditional Safety fears the emotions, creativity and risk. One can only embrace Imagination by embracing risk. This is why Risk Makes Sense. Indeed, one of the great assets of effective leadership is envisioning, imagining what could be or might be. Envisioning requires a movement into the hyphen of what-if (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/envisioning-risk-seeing-vision-and-meaning-in-risk/). Without Vison, there is no leadership.
In Imagination, we don’t fear the Unconscious, we embrace it. Indeed, as Johnson rightly states, we ‘wake up to the unconscious’. This is also why the work of Jung is so important in SPoR. In SPoR, the Unconscious, Imagination and Vision are understood as Archetypes. They have a power and energy unto themselves. There is no safety in such a space. This is why the best leaders are also risk takers, because they can envision and imagine. The idea that work-as-imagined and work-as-done are somehow opposed to each other is just more S2, HOP myth.
The myth (creating its own reality) of ‘work-as-imagined’ and ‘work-as-done’ sets up a false dichotomy between Imagination of one group against another eg. managers vs workers. We see this in the language of Hollnagel (https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/hindsight25.pdf, pp. 10-13). Strangely, you read nothing about the nature of human Imagination in any texts from the S2 group. Indeed, the emphasis in discourse from this group is on systems, performance and hazards. This is how we end up with such unimaginative nonsense ideas such as: ‘pre-accidents’, ‘resilience engineering’ (of systems), ‘blame fixes nothing’ and ‘learning from nothing’. A little creative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) demonstrates that most of what is posed as innovative is rhetoric and spin. Indeed, this group doesn’t even declare its ethic or methodology in so much of what it writes. No wonder there are no new methods and such little imagination.
The best way to innovate in safety is to step away from safety (de-couple) in how one embraces Imagination. This means NOT reading orthodox safety texts from Hollnagel, Dekker, Conklin etc. where rhetoric is strong and innovative methods don’t exist. Indeed, reading and researching in areas where one is comfortable endorsing the myths of agreement never seeks any voice of dissent or critical thinking where learning and Imagination may be found. Innovation never comes from discourse from within one’s own echo chamber. Indeed, reading outside of safety is the key to innovation in safety.
If one wants to better understand the nature of Imagination, then some of the following will help:
- https://maartenmeijer.nl/what-is-imaginology/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9425790/
- https://imaginology.co/
- https://neurosciencenews.com/empathy-imagination-25302/
- Coeckelbergh, M., (2007) Imagination and Principles An Essay on the Role of Imagination in Moral Reasoning. Palgrave, New York.
- Johnson, M., (1987) The Body in the Mind, The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Uni of Chicago Press. New York
- Gosetti- Ferencei., A., (2018) The Life of Imagination, Revealing and Making the World. Columbia,
However, all of this is risky and embracing Imagination is uncontrolled. If you are up for a conversation about innovation, creativity, discovery and Imagination, you can write here: admin@spor.com.au
brhttps://safetyrisk.net/imaginology-and-envisioning-risk/
Prompt