Solipsism is the belief that one can only really know one’s own world. It was an idea put forward by Wittgenstein. It is also an assertion from psychoanalysis that one cannot really know oneself, especially one’s own unconscious. The best we get as a hint to our unconscious is, what we remember from our dreams. So, here’s the paradox. If we can’t know what is inside or outside of ourselves, what can we know about ourselves and others?

Sometimes, we learn most about ourselves from what a trusted friend might tell us, but we certainly can’t see ourselves as others do. Even the idea of ‘the self’ is debated in philosophy, psychology and sociology, just as the History of our understanding of The Self is debated (https://www.academia.edu/22685812/Sources_of_the_Self).

I think of these things when I see people name themselves as ‘safety x’ or ‘safety y’. They put the word ‘safety’ in front of their name as an adjective to describe their identity as ‘Safety’. I find this desire to be identified as Safety fascinating. Is the Archetype of Safety so strong than one thinks they are the Archetype? I wrote about this before (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-your-life/) where people in safety identify Safety as their life! (In SPoR, we Capitalise words to indicate Archetype compare to activity or outcome.)

One of my concerns in identifying oneself as an outcome (safety) or a process, is what this says to others about how you see your world.

I remember reading a book years ago called Your God is Too Small but it could have just as easily have been entitled Your World is Too Small.

The trouble with identifying as Safety is that there is much more to life, being and living than being ‘safe’. People don’t get up from bed in the morning and think ‘safety, safety, safety’. Or do they? The meaning and purpose of life and work is NOT to be safety but to be, become, to learn and live. When I play with my grandkids, I think about fun, learning, joy much more than, are they safe?

How we wish to identify ourselves says much about what we think being in the world is about.

It is interesting that I don’t see people in other disciplines identify themselves with an Archetype eg. Nursing Ned, Teacher Ted, Medicine Mary, Socialworker Sue.

What this practice tells us in the safety industry is, that such identity reveals a psychosis with safety.

 That is, there is a degree to which the person who identifies as Safety is out of touch with reality.

Indeed, calling oneself ‘safety x’ on site actually detracts from what safety is about or any sense that safety is shared by everyone.

How we wish to be identified and what we want to be identified with on site, can also inhibit relationships, trust and mutuality. Running around on site and calling oneself ‘safety x’ on worksites I know creates a barrier to connection. When you identify as Safety what are you telling others? What, that they don’t care about safety? That only you have safety as a priority?

One of the things we study in SPoR is the importance of personhood and understanding persons in relation.

If we want to create mutuality, caring, trust and community on site, the last thing one should identify as is, Safety.