1. When considering sign-symbol systems, does Safety think about trade-offs and by-products made symbolically?
2. When trying to present a message symbolically, does Safety consider any of the basics of semiotics?
3. Does Safety understand that signs, symbols, icons and metaphors command a different understanding of messaging?
4. Does Safety think that these media are a different language than text?
5. Does Safety consider in much of its messaging, that it floods and clutters thinking?
6. Does safety try to say too much by symbols?
7. In safety semiotics, what messages are given to the unconscious that contradict the core message presented?

These are just a few questions that could be considered if Safety wants to get better at messaging symbolically.

In our third episode of Safety Semiotics, Matt and I consider more symbols presented by Safety on LinkedIn. The third episode in our series on safety semiotics can be viewed here:

It is important to note that this critique is intended to improve the way and purpose of safety messaging. Why wouldn’t Safety want to get the best out of its messaging?

Whilst safety people have the best of intentions and passion about safety, it would be helpful if the basics in semiotics were also considered (https://monoskop.org/images/0/07/Sebeok_Thomas_Signs_An_Introduction_to_Semiocs_2nd_ed_2001.pdf; https://raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/A-Theory-of-Semiotics-Umberto-Eco-1979.pdf; https://archive.org/details/IntroducingSemiotics-English-GraphicBook)

One of the things we know in Semiotics is that sign symbols, icons and semiosis target the unconscious. That is, signs and symbols don’t work the same as text. More so, you can’t bring the logic of textual analysis to the way symbols work. Visual learning is very different to propositional learning (https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/lshea/1.READINGS/4.How%20We%20See_all.pdf).

Semiotic thinking is one of the foundations of learning SPoR. Indeed, in some ways, such learning precedes most of what SPoR does. In SPoR, we don’t consider the world, a world of text, maths or an atmosphere, we consider the world as a semiosphere. This is illustrated in the map of the semiosphere and its composition (discussed in episode one) here:

When we understand the world as a symbolic world, we see the world (and culture) differently. This is articulated best by Yuri Lotman (https://archive.org/details/IntroducingSemiotics-English-GraphicBook).

When we understand culture NOT through propositions but through semiotics, the understanding of culture completely shifts (https://www.scielo.br/j/bak/a/5cPnfGxjDhDcyt5tjXxFgPw/?lang=en&format=pdf).

So, whilst Safety runs about locked into a paradigm of culture-as-systems or culture-as-behaviours, SPoR understand culture as a semiosphere. If you want to do safety differently, start here by shifting in worldview from engineering to thinking semiotically.

Those in marketing, advertising, designers, illustrators and those in visual instruction know most about this. This has been explained by many like in McLuhan (https://monoskop.org/images/0/0c/McLuhan_Marshall_1964_2003_The_Medium_Is_the_Message.pdf) in The Meaning is The Message.

That is, it is just as important, the way you seek to say something, as the content of what you say.

Indeed, we have found that contradictions in medium in safety, often contradict the very purpose of the message. Unfortunately, passion about safety and technique about safety is not enough if you want to communicate powerfully using symbols.

You can read more about semiotics in SPoR here: https://safetyrisk.net/?s=Semiotics

Or free download our text on SPoR and Semiotics, Methods to Tackle Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/).