The Safety of Space and Place
We’ve recognized for a while how house and place amplifies hurt (Nash, 2006, Inescapable Ecologies, A Historical past of Setting, Illness and Data). Once we take note of the non-measurables in life and being we start to ascertain security in a very completely different solution to naming and controlling hazards. Certainly, the burden of a cloth/bodily focus foisted on Safety by an engineering worldview feeds an obsession with on the lookout for threat within the unsuitable place. Once we be taught to dump the language of brain-centrism and body-as-machine metaphors we be taught a brand new language that envisions threat in another way (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/envisioning-risk-seeing-vision-and-meaning-in-risk/ ).
Nash’s work reveals how by means of Historical past that people have harmed themselves by means of the way in which they manage in house and place with out query. Researchers like Nash and Bachelard (The Poetics of Space ) display how necessary the creativeness is in understanding hurt. We all know that what we consider about house and place (https://safetyrisk.net/can-what-you-believe-make-you-well-or-sick/ ) and even the metaphors and language we use for sickness (Sontag, 1977, Sickness as a Metaphor – https://safetyrisk.net/can-what-you-believe-make-you-well-or-sick/; Radley, 1994, Making Sense of Sickness, The Social Psychology of Well being and Illness) form the way in which we self-harm. One of the most typical methods we hurt ourselves is although Approach, the search for complete effectivity (Ellul, 1964, The Technological Society – https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Ellul_Jacques_The_Technological_Society.pdf ).
Once you can’t envision threat, counting accidents seems to be such as you care about and have a ardour for security.
Envisioning is about large image pondering. Envisioning risk is about understanding threat outdoors of the bounds of mono-disciplinary security.
Once we be taught to leap outdoors of the bounds of engineering, we start to ascertain threat. Because of this the language of ‘ecologies’ is so necessary in understanding individuals, tradition and hurt (https://safetyrisk.net/so-you-want-culture-change-2/ ). As soon as one learns to step outdoors of the confines of numerics, metrics and the nonsense of zero, a brand new imaginative and prescient of dwelling and shifting in threat emerges. Once we dump the nonsense of prediction, controls, mechanics and omnipotence, we be taught to embrace individuals in a holistic method that humanizes threat.
instance is within the nonsense growth of ‘hot desking’ (https://safetyrisk.net/selective-safety-and-well-being/ ). Scorching desking is the search for effectivity on full present. People be damned, let’s economise, it saves cash. Scorching desking is Approach on full show. Nevertheless, most hurt in house and place is far more refined and insidious.
Safety is a disposition of Thoughts in place and house, not a mechanical technique for controlling hazards.
When your methodology (worldview) is formed by zero, primed by zero and framed by zero, no surprise the trajectory is the hurt of individuals.
It’s a disgrace that the research of Ergonomics in security is so slim and that human our bodies aren’t understood holistically (https://cllr.com.au/product/holistic-ergonomics-unit-6/ ). Conventional ergonomics merely reinforces the behaviourist assumptions of security that perceive ‘human factors’ as people as ‘factors’ in a system, not as individuals in an ecology. How unusual that human issue security is NOT about individuals however about our bodies as machines in a system. The machine metaphor is a catastrophe for individuals simply because the brain-as-computer metaphor is a catastrophe for the human Thoughts. The physique is NOT a machine (https://aeon.co/essays/how-ecological-thinking-fills-the-gaps-in-biomedicine ).
So, what can we do to forestall hurt?
- The starting of understanding hurt in security is to dump the nonsense of behaviourism, engineering and scientism as a body for understanding individuals. So long as the ideology and language of zero dominates the security house, individuals will likely be extra enormously harmed than ever.
- The subsequent factor is to understand that Safety embodies a philosophy (methodology) that it by no means research or discusses. And it’s out of this insidious philosophy that a lot dehumanisation of individuals emerges. Safety won’t ever enhance by placing heads within the sand and imagining that security is a few sort of goal authoritarian course of.
- Shifting away from a regulatory focus in curriculum can be vital if we’re to create a protected house for individuals to work.
- Embracing a Transdisciplinary focus can be important for higher understanding individuals and how cultural house can allow well-being.
There are various issues that may be carried out to enhance the way in which we sort out threat however they don’t seem to be to be present in conventional security. Even the 4 actions above are an enormous problem for an trade consumed with compliance, paperwork and policing.
Nevertheless, there’s a higher method that works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/ ), it simply depends on that first transfer away from zero in order that security can enhance (https://safetyrisk.net/moving-away-from-zero-so-that-safety-improves/ ).
Newest posts by Dr Rob Lengthy (see all)
PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA
Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has intensive expertise, {qualifications} and experience throughout a variety of sectors together with authorities, schooling, company, trade and neighborhood sectors over 30 years. Rob has labored in any respect ranges of the schooling and coaching sector together with serving on numerous publish graduate govt, publish graduate supervision, publish graduate course design and implementation applications.