I read with interest the continuous denialism of the S2 group as it rejects the reality of human error and fallibility.

As the various iterations of the S2 group evolve (from S2-RE now rejected by Hollnagel, to SD, NV and now HOP and incrementalism) we see a growing level of absurdity in denialism.

Armed with the slogans of HOP, human error is now demonised and blame is determined wrong. All this emerging from a group with no expertise in the psychology, politics or legal understanding of blame.

Over the past 12 months the fixation and psychosis of this group with failure and error has amplified, as this group moves more and more into the absurdities of positive psychology and systems addiction (https://safetyrisk.net/the-myth-of-shifting-blame-from-individuals-to-systems/).

At the same time as this group equates training with learning and data with knowledge in brain-centrism, we see a heightened anxiety about anything that resembles negativity, deconstruction or punishment. This leads to a fear of critical discourse analysis and critical thinking. However, it’s a good sell and great for marketing. What a great marketing ploy: no more blame, no more human error, all is warm and fuzzy in safety. Line up those slogans, name them ‘principles’ and entertain an alienated industry.

As the so called ‘gurus’ of this group continue this discourse of denialism, the real safety industry knows that humans are fallible, human error is real and the legal system apportions blame.

What we find in these schisms in safety is a profound lack of expertise in methodology and ethics. And so, traditional safety marches on with zero into brutalism and the S2 group regresses to denialism and naïve realism. Neither discourse offers much hope for an industry bogged down in its traditional curriculum and fixation with injury counting.

There is an alternative.

The realities of human error and fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/) are not problems but rather realities that the Safety industry must understand through a mature methodology of personhood, as is essential to any ethic of professionalism. Such a methodology and ethic simply doesn’t exist in either group.

Jumping from the absolutes of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) to the absolute of no blame is just a pendulum swing of binary extremism. There is no great movement forward in either approach, neither is there a balance in how to tackle the enactive challenges of risk (https://safetyrisk.net/is-risk-enactive-free-workshops/).

If you are interested in a positive and constructive alternative to either of these binary discourses, you can register for the next free workshops on Enactivism and Risk here: admin@spor.com.au