I’ve seen lately just a few books launched on ‘head and coronary heart management’ and related titles. Utilizing metaphor to privilege one a part of the physique over one other is nonsense.
If you wish to guarantee management for the entire particular person, then one will need to have an ethic and linguistics of personhood that understands embodied personhood. Drawing consideration to the mind and coronary heart misunderstands the entire particular person and locations such understanding in a binary framework.
There isn’t a head and coronary heart management solely embodied management, that is the pathway to envisioning the entire particular person.
That is the inspiration for all security in Psychosocial and Psychological Well being.
BoK codes, books, requirements, Act and Regulation, OHS Curriculum haven’t any basis to deal with Psychological Security. Certainly, the worldviews embedded (and hidden) in these paperwork ensures that the management related is: binary, individualistic and mechanistic.
All convey and residing is interaffected, intercorporeal and holistic (https://www.academia.edu/30974462/Intercorporeality_and_Interaffectivity ).
Sadly, the dominant methodologies of Security fixated in behaviourism and engineering aren’t any basis for embodied understanding, cultural understanding and lived being. If one needs to Humanise Management in Threat (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/humanising-leadership-in-risk-shifting-focus-from-objects-to-persons/) and shift focus from objects to individuals, then then the standard security worldview gained’t assist.
People will not be a physique directed by a head-as-computer. There’s merely no proof to help such an assertion. You may’t reprogram a mind to get a special final result.
This sort of nonsense ‘goop’ promoted by the AIHS (See Determine 1 Stone Aged Brains) is typical of poor analysis and silence in security on an ethic of personhood.
Determine 1. Stone Aged Brains
Certainly, most locations in security one reads about neuroscience is just code for behaviourism (Determine 2. Behaviourism as Neuroscience). I mentioned this right here: https://safetyrisk.web/the-myth-of-neuroscience-safety/; https://safetyrisk.web/safety-and-non-neuroscience/; https://safetyrisk.web/behaviourist-neuroscience-as-safety/; https://safetyrisk.web/turning-neuroscience-into-behaviourism/). Many of the stuff introduced because the neuroscience of security is introduced by engineers. Simply take a look at the studying record on the finish of this weblog and see if any such analysis is part of any of this branding.
That is one factor security is nice at, branding one thing by what it isn’t. Such is the character of security code (https://safetyrisk.web/deciphering-safety-code/). Simply because one thing is branded as ‘completely different’ doesn’t make it so. Simply because one thing is branded as ‘neuroscience’ doesn’t make it so.
Determine 2. Behaviourism as Neuroscience
Simply take a look at a few of these examples of Security utilizing the model neuroscience pushing conventional security agenda:
· https://www.safetysolutions.web.au/content material/enterprise/article/how-can-i-use-my-brain-as-ppe-part-1-1127176661
All of this ‘goop’ is introduced on the again of a binary worldview, poor analysis, behaviourist assumptions and the seek for a simplistic simple repair.
A lot of that is premised on the concept of the brain-as laptop and coronary heart because the metaphorical supply of feelings. Most of these items is introduced by behaviourists and engineers. It’s simplistic nonsense and it doesn’t work.
None of that is about neuroscience or management.
None of those auger effectively for an holistic understanding of individuals, management in danger or a holistic method to Psychosocial Security.
Right here’s yet another instance of the AIHS selling conventional security (efficiency) and utilizing neuroscience code for behaviourism Determine 3. Security Efficiency.
Determine 3. Security Efficiency.
The fixed mythology of this head/coronary heart stuff is poisonous. It looks as if it’s constructive whereas the entire time drawing folks away from an holistic understanding of the entire particular person.
Let’s take a look at just a few necessities:
· The mind isn’t a CPU.
· The eyes will not be a digicam.
· Heuristics will not be RAM and there’s no ROM.
· Muscular tissues ‘keep in mind’.
· Neurons onerous wire for motion
· Eyes ‘interpret’ all we see.
· The nostril ‘interprets’ all we odor.
· The face and physique interpret each emotion.
· Ears ‘interpret’ all we hear.
· The intestine makes impartial selections.
· We’re entire individuals who’re intercorporeal and interaffected.
This why when traumatised, ‘Your Physique Retains the Rating’ (Van der Kolk).
Our nervous system, endocrine system, circulation system, respiration system, nervous system, pores and skin system is all interconnected and all make impartial selections that later inform the mind.
The mind doesn’t situation instructions, it hosts conversations.
Why does this matter?
There might be no Psychological Security utilizing a head and coronary heart binary mannequin and privileging one metaphor in management over one other. Neither brain-centrism or heart-centrism helps seize the form of management required for Psychosocial Security.
Such fashions as head and coronary heart management fashions endorse frequent myths of binary personhood. Such binary fashions don’t help understanding of the entire particular person or result in Psychosocial understanding that may assist entire individuals.
That is why tradition is NOT ‘what we do round right here’, why construction doesn’t create tradition (Hopkins), why ‘accidents will not be a alternative you make’ and ‘all accidents will not be preventable’.
That is why in SPoR we use the decrease case ‘thoughts’ to point mind and the higher case ‘Thoughts’ to point entire particular person.
With out a worldview that orients in the direction of the entire particular person, there will probably be no management for the entire particular person.
That is why all OHS laws, regulation and codes don’t assist with Psychosocial Security as a result of Security has no mannequin of the entire particular person nor an ethic of personhood. Such language because the ‘entire particular person’ or an ‘ethic of personhood’ is ever spoken within the context of ethics or any the documentation on Psychosocial Security.
In case you are on the lookout for management that may foster Psychosocial Security it must be Embodied.
The best way we discuss individuals, envision individuals, the metaphors we use for individuals and silence on the holistic nature of individuals, dictates the form of management we throw at Psychosocial Security.
A lot of what floats in regards to the Security trade in binary mechanistic nonsense allows management mythologies to perpetuate that can’t assist Psychosocial Security.
If you wish to begin your journey towards Psychosocial security that considers the entire particular person, studying any of the next will assist:
· Claxton, G., (2015) Intelligence within the Flesh. Yale College Press. New York.
· Colombetti, G., The Feeling Physique, Affective Science Meets the Enactive Thoughts. MIT Press, London
· Damasio, A., (1994) Descartes’ Error, Emotion, Cause, and The Human Brian. Penguin, New York.
· Damasio, A., (1999) The Feeling of What occurs, Physique and Feelings within the Making of Consciousness. Harvest Books, New York.
· Durt, C., Fuchs, T., and Tews, C., (eds.) (1997) Embodiment, Enaction, and Tradition. MIT Press. London.
· Fuchs, T., (2018) Ecology of the Mind, The Phenomenology and Biology of the Embodied Thoughts. Oxford College Press. London.
· Fuchs, T., (2021) In Protection of the Human Being Foundational Questions of an Embodied Anthropology. Oxford College Press. London.
· Ginot, E., (2015) The Neurophsychology of the Unconscious, Integrating Mind and Thoughts in Psychotherapy. Nortons. New York.
· Noe, A., (2009) Out of Our Heads, Why You Are Not Your Brian and Different Classes from The Biology of Consciousness. Hill and Wang. New York.
· Panksepp, J., (1998) Affective Neuroscience, The Foundations of Human Animal Feelings. Oxford College Press. London.
· Thompson, E., (2010) Thoughts in Life, Biology, Phenomenology, and the Science of the Thoughts. Belknap Press. London.
· Tversky, B., (2019) Thoughts in Movement, How Motion Shapes Ideas. Fundamental Books. New York.
· Van Der Kolk, B., (2015) The Physique Retains the Rating, Mind, Thoughts and Physique within the Therapeutic of Trauma. Penguin, New York.
· Varela, F., Thompson, E ., and Rosch, E., (1993) The Embodied Thoughts, Cognitve Science and Human Expertise. MIT Press, London.