Initially posted on Could 19, 2017 @ 7:12 AM
Sticks and Stones and the Nonsense of Zero Hurt
After we have been youngsters we have been taught the rhyme ‘sticks and stones might break my bones however phrases won’t ever hurt me’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones ). This mantra is such a foolish infantile semiotic that completely ignores the character of how language impacts the thoughts. The reality is, phrases do matter. What we are saying and the way we are saying it may be so dangerous. (see additional: https://www.psychologytoday.com/weblog/words-can-change-your-brain, Fairhurst ‘The Energy of Framing’ or, Flynn, Slovic & Kunreuther ‘Threat, Media and Stigma’)
We all know how dangerous bullying might be. We additionally know that bullying and harassment within the office results in suicide and important psychological hurt. We all know that is so based mostly on the Alec Meikle suicide and Downer EDI case (http://www.abc.internet.au/information/2015-01-30/inquest-into-the-suicide-of-a-teenage-apprentice-ends/6057712 ).
I ponder if any tier one organisations who espouses zero hurt file the variety of individuals bullied of their group? I ponder in the event that they even contemplate the connection between absenteeism and bullying? I ponder if psychological hurt is even a blip on their zero hurt radar? I wager no TRIFR or LTI fee data bullying! See how absurd zero hurt is.
The reality is, the language of zero hurt and counting TRIFR and LTIs creates a give attention to bodily hurt. Security counts solely what it sees. Beneath the rubric of zero hurt, cuts and breaks turn out to be privileged data and desired data, whereas hidden and unseen hurt isn’t thought-about hurt. The delusion of zero is barely saved alive by this loopy concept that security is achieved by the absence of hurt. So firms freak out over any LTI however let a whole lot of days of absenteeism slip beneath the radar. Lovely, that is the zero hurt delusion.
A latest survey in constructing and development (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/seven-in-10-young-workers-bullied-harassed-in-canberra-unions-act-20170514-gw4tbm.html) indicated that younger individuals are bullied on website at an alarming fee. The analysis exhibits the extent and energy of hurt projected by such bullying. For instance, a teenager being referred to as ‘retard’ is a really highly effective metaphor and semiotic. Metaphors are maybe essentially the most highly effective of semiotics relating to bullying. Ricoeur calls metaphor a ‘heuristic of thought’ (‘The Rule of Metaphor’). A heuristic is psychological ‘rule of thumb’ that substitutes for a prolonged course of or discourse. There it’s, only one word-metaphor might be so highly effective as a result of it sums up a thoughts image of all that’s hooked up to it.
It’s not shocking that Security doesn’t actually get the social psychological nature of bullying. When Security accepts such incongruent metaphors as ‘Resilience Engineering’ as regular, we are able to see the extent of the issue. The truth that Security is so immersed within the mechanistic worldview can be a important consider why bullying runs beneath the radar. With a WHS curriculum so centered on objects and an SIA physique of information so centered on programs and hazards, is it any surprise that bullying receives no point out as a social-psychological downside.
The article cited above additionally states: ‘ACT work security commissioner Greg Jones mentioned harsher penalties didn’t at all times result in compliance’. How true. Greg Smith has written so eloquently on this (https://www.safetyrisk.internet/450000-is-this-what-we-want-from-prosecutions/ ). Penalties are so ineffective as a result of bullying is a cultural downside and foolish dumb down Security defines tradition as ‘what we do round right here’. So once more, with such a definition one can solely give attention to behaviours and this results in a complete ignorance of the ability of symbols, artefacts and semiotics as cultural elements. Poor outdated Security, nonetheless centered on behaviourism and measurement while an epidemic of bullying runs beneath the radar. After all, the ideology of behaviourism additionally promotes the nonsense that penalties and punishment drive behaviour. Our gaols are stuffed with examples that kill off such mythology. Analysis into the psychology of targets and motivation present fairly clearly that individuals are not the sum of inputs and outputs (https://www.safetyrisk.internet/understanding-safety-goals/ ).
So what might be carried out to invoke some change? First, organisations must take language and semiotics severely, which implies they should perceive the important points. Bother is, there is no such thing as a coaching within the orthodox security world on semiotics. Second, organisations must dump nonsense language like ‘zero hurt’ and begin to communicate a unique language that has a holistic focus. Security won’t ever see bullying as a social-psychological downside when it’s blind to its personal ‘collective unconscious’. Third, curriculum reform is required to assist the business transfer away from a ‘dumb down’ give attention to objects and hazards to raised give attention to individuals as topics (not as a sub-set of a system). When security begins to know itself as a ‘serving to’ exercise slightly than a surveillance exercise, then the speed of bullying might begin to be addressed.
There are a bunch of different actions Security can take to deal with the scourge of bullying however until bullying is known as a social-psychological downside, nothing a lot will change.