The legacy of the work of James Reason does not drive much sense-able thinking in safety.

Perhaps the worst of all of what was injected into the safety world by Reason was the semiotic of the swiss-cheese. Whilst this model (yes, models matter) projects a logical linear understanding of risk and events, it doesn’t reflect reality. What the model does, is create a belief looking for a form. The swiss-cheese creates a bias in thinking that underpins methods like ICAM (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-icam-useful-or-useless/) that has somehow been made an industry standard. Neither ICAM nor the swiss-cheese help in tackling the realities of risk or events (https://safetyrisk.net/you-get-what-you-expect-in-safety-or-how-the-burden-of-james-reasons-ideology-bogs-down-safety/).

The reality of the world is that it is messy. Some describe the world as a VUCA world, full of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263926940_What_VUCA_really_means_for_you).

The real world is not neat, linear or predictable regardless of the myths of data analytics. The real world and its systems are fallible, mortal, incomplete and temporal. In many ways the world doesn’t make rational sense. One cannot apply the idea of reasoning to events that have NOT been formed by some kind of linear order. Indeed, if we look at the world, things are much more chaotic than reasonable. A much better way to understand events using a swiss-cheese metaphor looks like this (see Figure 1. Messy Swiss-Cheese):

Figure 1. Messy Swiss-Cheese

 

What the myth of Reason creates is, a blindness to see the world as it is.

When you look up the profile of James Reason on the Internet there is this description: ‘the absent-minded professor who made a safer world’. More mythology, how did Reason make the world safer? Indeed, the safety world would be much better off without the myths, semiotics and reasoning of Reason (https://safetyrisk.net/faith-in-reason-and-unreasoned-faith-as-safety-myth/).

The trouble is, once a myth is created in safety, empowered by a semiotic, it is then made mythically true, when it is not true in reality. The swiss-cheese is only true for a safety world that has been indoctrinated with it and believes it to be true. But anyone involved in any event investigation knows that events do not unfold according to the reasoning of Reason.

It is no different from the myths created by Heinrich. There is no injury ratio rate. There is no pyramid of accident causation. These are just semiotic models (yes models matter) created by an insurance salesman who had no expertise in a host of disciplines critical to understanding risk. Indeed, the dominoes of Heinrich, pyramids, curves, bow-ties and swiss-cheese are all semiotic models that have been created by people with no expertise in semiotics. If you are going to use symbols, signs and semiotics to make a point in safety, it might help to know a little about how semiotics work (https://safetyrisk.net/when-semiotics-show-your-real-agenda-in-safety/).

At a very basic level, all models, semiotics, symbols and signs hold an undisclosed ethic, bias and projected method. Each model poses an implied ethic that is not disclosed. This is why models matter. In the case of Reason, it is an ethic of linear reason (deontological reason). The reason why Safety loves Reason so much is because the reasoning of Reason suits its worldview. Similarly with Heinrich. Both are simply myth makers.

Another model of Reason is the unsafe acts map. Again, another semiotic that sets in motion a focus on behaviourist reasoning and linear cause.

In no place in Reason’s work is there any explanation of the fallible human unconscious, the nature of judgement and decision making, automaticity or, how the pre-conscious shapes decisions. The map simply gets accepted, as a semiotic myth, so that reasoning about error is defined by Reason’s map. This is because the map starts by a focus on ‘acts’ NOT how humans’ so or don’t reason.

Once the semiotic myth has indoctrinated the safety population, gets infused in all texts and been accepted without question, it is made mythically true. But this map does NOT explain: events, the nature of motivation, the problem of conscious intention, consciousness nor, what a lapse is.

It is so serendipitous and quirky that the notions of Reason are associated with non-reasoning.

When one understands the relationship between semiotics and myth, one knows that the two are the flip side of the same coin. Myth needs semiotics just as semiotics needs myth. The two combine to create a mythical reality. All myth making works this way. (https://afsaap.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Boye-Fayyaz-Unveiling-Cultural-Significance.pdf; https://soundenvironments.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/roland-barthes-mythologies.pdf )

Once a myth is empowered by a semiotic, it is made semiotically and mythically true. The indoctrination and propaganda follow, thus confirming the myth. This is how MAGA, the Murdoch media and political myths work, but none of it is true.

What results from the work of Reason is: a disconnected way of reasoning that doesn’t interrogate the flaws of models, doesn’t deconstruct the nature of symbols, accepts the hidden ethic of a model and makes myth a new reality (https://safetyrisk.net/how-to-make-safety-culture-myths-true/). Then when academics tell you models don’t matter, this confirms the indoctrination and affirms further the myths of safety (https://safetyrisk.net/of-course-the-model-matters/).

Reasoning should be about working out the sense of something. And, none of Reason’s reasoning make sense. Events are not caused according to the swiss-cheese logic nor do events match the map of ‘unsafe acts’.

The trouble is in safety, once we make gurus, so called ‘thought leaders’, elevate noisy vessels and myth makers above all, we adopt the symbols and myths made as true. Then follows the indoctrination in ICAM, the slogans of HOP and models of thinking to match the reasoning of Reason.

We would be much better served by Critical Discourse Analysis, studies in Semiotics, Ethics and Linguistics than the indoctrination of all this stuff. Unfortunately, none of this is on the radar of safety. Criticising Reason is considered anti-safety, such is the deification of safety myths and religious adherence to a guru and sacred cows.

If you are interested in critical thinking, Critical Discourse Analysis, studies in Semiotics, Ethics and Linguistics and how this affect risk, then you can learn much about this at the SPoR Convention in Canberra running this September (https://safetyrisk.net/spor-convention-15-19-september-2025/).

So far, we have a nice group joining us from across Australia, NZ, North America and Europe. It’s a great time of learning, constructive dialogue with others and, developing practical positive skills in tackling risk. For more information you can email here: admin@spor.com.au