You are NOT the Sum of Safety

imageI find it comical all these people who think they are Safety. How strange this industry that ‘anchors’ someone so hard to an Archetype as a persona (Jung) that one thinks a criticism of safety is a criticism of them. How peculiar.

Even the most fundamental understanding of linguistics and grammar ( makes such identity laughable. The fundamentals of metonym and synedoche are well known, except to Safety.

When we state that ‘History says’, we don’t end up with Historians being offended by implication that one is criticising History. When we complain about the Economy we don’t end up with all the Economists coming out as offended by criticising the Economy. When the Media says ‘Canberra says’ Canberrans don’t identify with the grammar of media speak.

Oh yes, but safety is offended any time you criticise Safety. This is why in all my writing I use the capitalisation of Safety to denote the Archetype.

I know hundreds of good people in safety, but none of them are Safety. Only a crusader would call themselves ‘Safety Dave or Safety Sue’.

If Safety had even a rudimentary interest in linguistics, it would NOT speak such nonsense to people ( If Safety had even a basic interest in Discourse Analysis or Semiotics:

It wouldn’t get its ‘knickers in such a twist’.

If Safety had any interest in Transdisciplinarity, it might realise that an Archetype is NOT a person. It’s 101 learning in Primary School English.

But please don’t tell me that:

  • The global mantra and ideology for Safety is NOT zero
  • Safety is NOT anchored to Heinrich, Reason etc
  • The swiss-cheese, curves, pyramids and other semiotics are NOT foundational for Safety
  • Safety doesn’t speak gobbledygook to people
  • Safety is a choice you make
  • Accidents are preventable or,
  • Safety is your personal responsibility
  • Mental health is a ‘hazard’
  • Culture is ‘what we do around here’
  • Safety gives you the right to ‘overpower’ others
  • Safety is a knowledge industry
  • Safety is professional or interested in learning/ethics
  • Safety is ethical and cares about Ethics
  • Is NOT about behaviourism, engineering and objects
  • Safety doesn’t identify with Mums for safety, pickles, heroes, meerkats, dumb ways to die, blobs, furballs, warriors, Indiana Jones, gimps, gurus and Sensei
  • The Spirit of Zero video is not apocalyptic cultic religious nonsense
  • The safety curriculum is person-centric, helping-centric and diverse
  • Safety is sexy or for nerds

Please don’t tell me that this is NOT the language of Safety.

If this is NOT how you speak why are not more people in safety protesting about this nonsense language and crazy linguistics?

Why is all this language confirmed every time an association announces some course or conference? Why is the nonsense language by the regulator not challenged? Oh, that’s right, criticism of Safety is anti-safety!

This is the Indoctrination of Safety. There is no learning or critical thinking in any compliance to all of this goop or anchoring to zero. When compliance is the foundation of anything, critical thinking dies.

Of course, if you are prepared to ‘challenge your own thinking’ as some claim to do, then there are many options in SPoR to do so, For example:


Register for the workshops in Europe or Canberra:

These workshops will help you move away from: the engineering/behaviourism/positivism approach to safety, identifying with Safety and the myth of objectivity and, discover methods that actually work to humanise risk (

Source link

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.