One of the common images in the HOP world and pre-accident investigation semiotics are the Jenga blocks. One of the grand delusions of S2 rhetoric and semiotics is that somehow something ‘different’ is being proposed. Such is the art of smoke and mirrors.

In many HOP semiotics we constantly see brain-centrism and the Jenga blocks.

Both are common to conventional/traditional safety. For example, In the publication series on HOP beginner guides we have the brain in light bulb, the Jenga blocks and of course, the mice, alluding back to the swiss-cheese of James Reason.

What we see in these images is both linear and hierarchical, just as traditional Safety loves it. Of course, this is the attraction of HOP. New words, new images – same old methodology (undeclared). Same old non-declaration of ethics. And, with all this undeclared methodology (philosophy) neither are there any methods. This is why HOP is so attractive to traditional safety. New package, same methodology, old ethic and so nothing changes. Ah, the power of slogans to seduce Safety is mind numbing.

Jenga is a game created in the 1970s and is all about building/constructing. The game is all about pulling out blocks so that one can entrap one’s opposition into being the first to make the tower collapse. So, as each player pulls out a block they make the tower weaker until the tower falls over. The game comes with 54 wooden blocks and has a range of variations that have developed for the game.

Jenga is just like the swiss-cheese model/semiotic. The idea is that an event is linear and that when all things line up wrongly through the swiss cheese, one creates a cause. Reason’s swiss-cheese model is old and dates back to the early 1980s. The semiotic is one of the greatest liabilities ever invented in the safety sector (https://safetyrisk.net/why-reason-is-un-reasonable/). The belief behind the swiss-cheese creates a false narrative, events, being, life and ecological living doesn’t work at all like this. The Jenga semiotics is exactly the same and anchored to the same belief.

But when safety loves a belief, it makes it sacred myth. It then teaches myth as truth, just as it does Heinrich’s pyramid. None of this is scientific although that is often the language attributed to this semiotics.

In Jenga we see the same hidden beliefs that Safety loves – find the weak point, see the cause, see the weak link in the chain, find the ‘root cause’, risk systems are about building and falling over.

The assumption in using the Jenga semiotic by HOP is that safety is systemic and that things go wrong when the one piece is missing. The model essentially promotes the negative illusion of seeing a single causes for accidents that are linear and hierarchical.

The semiotics to which we anchor, say a great deal about what is believed. You can see much about safety beliefs by semiotic here:

Indeed, when we anchor to semiotics, these are far more powerful than any propositions or slogans made. This is because semiotics penetrates the unconscious.

Semiotics are also chosen unconsciously on the basis of undisclosed beliefs. Indeed, many in safety couldn’t articulate their methodology/ontology simply because philosophy is considered relevant by the sector.

If you chose a semiotic of a ball of rubber bands, what is believed? And if this is coupled to slogans, what real principles are being hidden? Slogans are NOT principles

So, as we return to the issue of the Jenga blocks what is believed? In what way are these beliefs any ‘different’ than traditional safety? If the beliefs are identical to the swiss-cheese beliefs how is any of this new? Different?

If you want to understand the nature of semiotics and sources of belief. You are welcome to do studies in SPoR that offer a radical approach to understanding sign/symbols systems and how they affect methodology and method. This study is positive, constructive and helpful in maintaining consistency in messaging, methodology, method and ethics in risk.