Understanding that something can be made a fetish is common to cultural, anthropology and social psychology studies. The word ‘fetish’ simply means ‘the attribution of power to an object’. It has evolved over time to be given sexual meaning but this is not how the word is used in contexts of making symbols into simulacra. Indeed, purity can be made a fetish.

Anything can be attributed with spiritual power or taboo (https://monoskop.org/images/7/7d/Douglas_Mary_Purity_and_Danger_An_Analysis_of_Concepts_of_Pollution_and_Taboo_2001.pdf). Mary Douglas and Mircea Eliade (https://monoskop.org/images/b/b1/Eliade_Mircea_The_Sacred_and_The_profane_1963.pdf ) should be compulsory reading for anyone in safety, in order to understand the power of symbols and how symbols are made into political (sacred) instruments. Jung (Man and His Symbols https://archive.org/details/B-001-004-443-ALL) is also helpful reading.

Making an object a fetish is so easily done. One often starts with a good intention, such as wishing to prevent accidents. Then a model is developed such as swiss-cheese to explain a way of blocking holes in defensive actions against risk. Or, uses the model of Jenja blocks for the same thing (https://safetyrisk.net/the-jenga-blocks-are-swiss-cheese/). The methodology of the model is the same, it’s just called ‘different’. Ones the model is made and becomes symbolic, it begins to take on power beyond itself.

The classic is the HOP symbols of mice, brain and swiss-cheese all in one.

Then by repetition, you start seeing Jenga blocks (or images of the brain) appear everywhere as a valid symbol for how to manage risk. Such is ‘the procession of simulacra’ (https://safetyrisk.net/seduction-and-simulacra-in-safety/). The same occurs when the symbol of the brain appears everywhere in safety as a symbol for ‘thinking’. In the end, the symbol of the idea becomes the reality itself, not the idea that it points to.

Soon enough, everyone in safety associates ‘thinking’ with brain activity. In this case, the centrality of the human body and enactivism (https://safetyrisk.net/guide-enactivism-risk/) is lost and hidden. Once the symbols take on power to mask and ‘hide’ reality, ‘the procession of simulacra’ is complete.

Then, any suggestion that the human ‘thinks’ with their whole body or bodily systems is rejected (https://safetyrisk.net/embodied-mental-health-risks/). The symbol of the brain becomes simulacra. We see this constantly, where the symbol of the brain is anchored to psychosocial risk (https://safetyrisk.net/psychosocial-contexts-and-risk-factors/). It’s so strange as if the word ‘social’ is not anchored to the end of the word. Instead, the word ‘social’ is exchanged for brain.

This happens most when the originators of the symbols don’t understand their own ethic or methodology (philosophy). Just do an image search for the word psychosocial and the dominant symbol is the human brain?

Most symbols at the start serves a sense of utility but as time goes on and the symbol is repeated, it takes on political significance. The symbol then becomes a political identifier of belonging to a group. Those in the group don’t know this and think that repetition of the symbol is harmless. Indeed, this is how the power of symbols and the sorcery of symbols work. A study of semiotics and mythology helps identify this.

When the symbol (or text as symbol – Halliday) becomes anchored to a group politically over time, it then takes on power beyond itself much more than what the group thinks it does.

The best way to test the development of a symbol as a fetish (as simulacra) is to challenge it. Suggest taking the symbol away and see what happens. Such a suggestion is then interpreted as either an attack on the founder of the symbol or an attack on the group. Identity with the symbol in such situations has become ‘complete’. This is also why zero is nearly impossible to eradicate from an organisation once it takes on the role of simulacra.

The best way to ensure ‘the procession of simulacra’ (Baudrillard) is to make sure that none in the group study semiotics, ethics, politics, religion or culture. In this way, the language of ‘safety’ itself becomes simulacra. Indeed, this is why a study of religion helps demonstrate how symbols becomes objects to worship.

Once in the identity of safety, there is no need for any Transdisciplinary thinking, all one needs to do for safety is to be absorbed in safety. Indeed, it is common for safety nerds and geeks to declare that they are safety (https://safetyrisk.net/you-are-not-the-sum-of-safety/).

We see the fetishism of symbols best in cults like MAGA, One Nation or new political attributions given to flags, slogans and symbols of a group. The slogans of the group become ‘mantras’ (religious-like) for belonging and identity. This is helped if founders (who have no idea about ethics) call these slogans ‘principles’. Soon enough, every lemming in the group calls these slogans ‘principles’ and so the procession of simulacra is complete.

Such fetishism is not sexual but none the less, excites belonging in the group through political identity, repetition and attachment.

A need has been created that excites the group when the objects of belonging are shared. Similarly, taboos are created to ensure the power of the symbol and the symbol as power. This is also why a study of power is not part of any safety curriculum.

The best place to get started, is by doing an image or symbol search for a group and see what symbols are repeated and unchallenged. In this way, one will also discover why safety is not innovating or changing. It just substitutes and equates new symbols for old but they serve the same purpose. And so, the bandwagon rolls on, singing the song of ‘we wish for innovation’ whilst caught in the procession of simulacra.