Dogmatism is characterised by the expression of opinion as fact, or the tendency to assert something as true (a proposed hypothesis, principle, law, etc.), without consideration of evidence, or the opinions or counterarguments of others. Dogmatism has been evident in many new movements across various domains – health, personal development, business, and, of course, religion.
Dogmatism can be prevalent in the all stages of development of a movement. In the early stages, it can come in the form of wholesale, ‘scorched earth’ criticism of a prior theory or approach. This may concern a different genre or paradigm, or even the work of a rival theoretician or commercial rival (which tend to amount to the same thing). This can be a way to lay the ground for a new approach. As a movement gathers pace and ground, dogma is established and adherents move from attack to defence. From this point, there can be uncritical adherence to unchanging principles, formulas, and methods which tend to be commercially calcified.
Dogmatism is opposed to scientific inquiry. While science relies on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation to build and test theories, dogmatism is fundamentally belief-based, relying on faith, authority, conformity and tradition. While science embraces new evidence and adapts theories accordingly, dogmatism resists change, even in face of contradictory evidence. Dogmatism is also opposed to critical thinking, including skepticism and peer review, and open exchange of ideas from different backgrounds and multiple perspectives.
Here are some signs and symptoms of dogmatism in the context of new movements and New Safety Movements (NSMs).
Simplism
Simplism, discussed previously, can be a sign or symptom of dogmatism, and the two intersect. For movements concerned with health, personal development, business and spirituality, there are several manifestations. One is rigid adherence to monolithic explanations and overly simplified principles, which become doctrines. On the intervention side, there is likely to be reliance on single methods and contextually-insensitive but dogmatically-applied one-size-fits-all, silver bullet solutions. These are commonplace in movements concerned with diet and exercise, personal development and spirituality. Lack of self-criticality, lack of scientific rigour and a research-practice chasm is also typical, or even essential; no amount of evidence is likely to permeate dogmatic simplism among the heavily invested. Indeed, the combination of dogmatism and simplism is emotionally and cognitively appealing and hence commercially appealing. Commercial interest will tend to reinforce dogmatism, as challenges to simplistic ideas could threaten revenue streams. The combination of the above will tend to multiply the effects of overstatement and overreach.
Implications for NSMs: The intersection of dogmatism and simplism within New Safety Movements leads to rigid, surface-level approaches, such as ‘zero harm‘, a focus on ‘human error‘, simplistic principles for complex problems, one-size-fits-all training, and poorly designed and implemented checklists. These can gain quick acceptance and popularity, but lack the depth required for meaningful and sustained impact. To the extent that they are entangled in egoism and over-commercialism, improvement is impossible for some approaches. This can result in waves of faddism, each with a backwash of disappointment and disillusionment (for some, at least). The difficulty lies in balancing accessibility with complexity. Complexity theory can help here (though this field is a movement in itself and this series applies, albeit to a lesser degree), as can a pragmatic science and research-oriented practice.
Absolutism and extremism
Dogmatic movements tend to present their ideas, practices, services or products as absolute truths, leaving little room for nuance, shades of grey, or conditionality. Absolutism may involve insistence that a particular theory, approach or strategy is the only way to understand a phenomenon or intervene, regardless of experience or context. This will be reinforced by a confirmation bias, accepting information that supports dogmatic claims and preconceptions and dismissing anything that contradicts them. Absolutism and extremism is potentiated by authoritarianism and insularity, covered later.
Implications for NSMs: Safety practitioners should beware of absolutism in writings and communication about NSMs. This can be seen in ‘zero tolerance’ and zero harm polices and frameworks. Absolutism and extremism can also be seen in ‘safety first’ pronouncements, and calls to abandon standard operating procedures (SOPs), to not investigate accidents or incidents, or to focus simplistically on behaviour. It can also be seen in idealistic views of people (often under the misguided cover of ‘local rationality‘) or, alternatively, demonising views of workers, safety practitioners, regulators, or managers. A more balanced approach would be to propose new ideas more tentatively and humbly until greater evidence (which may take many forms) and experience exists. (Here is an attempt at this with regard to Safety-II).
Discrediting alternatives and rejection of dissent
Healthy movements welcome questions and differing viewpoints as opportunities for growth. Dogmatic movements shut down dissent, and ignore, discredit or dismiss research or evidence that contradicts core beliefs, and associated ideas, technologies, or methodologies. They also portray critics as enemies or misguided, penalising or even ostracising those who offer alternative viewpoints or criticisms. Some movements label conventional approaches that have a basis in scientific research as harmful or part of a conspiracy, where those who disagree are seen as enemies. By demonising opposing viewpoints , dogmatic movements offer no space for exploration. There is, of course, a difference between offering alternative viewpoints and criticisms, and attacking or insulting, and the latter is a legitimate reason to ignore assailants.
Implications for NSMs: New Safety Movements should be open to adapting their ideas (tenets, principles, approaches, etc) as they encounter new information. One should probably be suspicious where early ideas remain unchanged, especially where these ideas are commercialised. This is a sign that the NSM is closed, rather than open, to testing and innovation. At a personal and professional level, one must demonstrate a willingness and practice to adapt beliefs in light of new evidence.
Leaderism and authoritarianism
New movements often centre around a charismatic leader (a ‘gooroo‘) and one or more foundational texts. (Some even – unironically – publicly label themselves ‘guru’, ‘world leader’, ‘global authority’, etc.) While some individuals can be sources of inspiration, dogmatic movements discourage critical examination of, and disagreement with, their pronouncements. Such figures will typically not invite scrutiny or alternative perspectives, and this will be clear by communication style or behaviour. They may, for instance, rely heavily on emotional rhetoric and anecdotes rather than rational argumentation and empirical data. Or they may exhibit elaborate and rehearsed social displays of dominance and power, typically using their linguistic skills and follower backup to shut down opposing ideas.
As movements become more cult-like, ‘leaders’ may be seen as demi-gods who are infallible (and therefore unchallengable) and demand loyalty. There is much evidence among high control groups of introjection, where an influential person (such as a movement’s leader) is internalised by followers, and affects their thoughts, behaviours, communication, and even emotional responses. What is acceptable is what the cult leader would think, do, say and feel. This has been especially evident in religious, spiritual and personal development movements.
Implications for NSMs: Those with significant influence in New Safety Movements can be tempted by dogmatism in their attempts to promote their ideas. This can bring serious division (and derision) among safety professionals and confusion among other stakeholders.
Safety professionals and other stakeholders should be wary of leaderism and appeals based on authority, and question the nature of authority. If the person is writing or talking about safety management or regulation, what level and diversity of (recent) experience does the person have in practice of the work itself. Alternatively (and ideally additionally) what experience does the person have of the study of the practice of safety practitioners, managers, or regulators? (Neither of these is an antidote to dogmatism, however, and outdated and limited experience can be of more harm than good, with a heightened risk of mind projection fallacy.)
One should also beware of Machiavellianism and narcissism, and associated methods of persuasion and social influence (such as appeals to emotion or club membership). And, of course, one should always follow the money. NSMs are no different to other movements in the central role of the profit motive among innovators and promoters (though this clearly affects some more than others).
Insularity
Collective dogmatism naturally fosters an insular social environment. Movements demanding conformity have a tendency to become echo chambers where like-mindedness is valued for the sake of certainty and belonging (both of which serve to reduce anxiety, or at least some manifestations of it). Some are more immune to this, while others are very prone. External and opposing ideas from other fields, even empirical findings and theory, tend to be seen as threats in dogmatic movements, and hence disregarded, resisted or opposed, sometimes with hostility. Internal diversity of thought and dissent is corralled to avoid cognitive dissonance. This further insulates movements, and widens both group polarisation and the research-practice gap.
All of this can give rise to cult-like dynamics and an ‘us and them’ group mentality. Ultimately, hermetically-sealed movements tend toward obsolescence, desperate to recruit new adherents – often disguising the nature of the movement – as general knowledge of more diverse insights becomes common. While social media has potentiated some of these effects, the internet more generally has helped to expose movements true aims and methods. Some new religious movements even declared war on the internet, and even changed the nature of it.
Implications for NSMs: There is ample evidence of insularity within NSMs. This was evident even before the advent of social media, especially between different safety research traditions. Some authors and groups would advance their own theories but ignore or oppose the theories of competitors (even resulting in Wikipedia edit wars). This can still be seen today, but hypersocial media and over-commercialism have added new insular dynamics. For several years, we have seen increasing populism among safety practitioners on social media grouped according to their NSMs (much more evident among workplace or occupational health and safety practitioners, than major accident hazard safety practitioners).
When closed off and unresponsive to external perspectives and real-world challenges, NSMs lose credibility among practitioners and stakeholders, especially when ideas are oversimplified and over-commercialised. After an initial spike in interest and uptake, some NSMs have seen decreased adoption and ultimate abandonment of NSM ideas. The only antidote to insularity is to abandon group belonging and leaderist followership in favour of critical thinking and diversity of thought. This involves questioning simplistic principles and formulas, rejecting authoritarianism, and – again – following the money.
Ironically, in the case of populist science, some less commercialised innovators occasionally abandon their old concepts and theories for new ones, leading implementers and promoters conceptually and methodologically anchored to old ideas.
A final piece of advice is to follow and listen to critics (which may appear as Benjamin Taylor‘s curmudgeon ego trap). Such voices are suppressed internally, but so long as one isn’t ‘too far gone’, critics offer perspectives that can help one find porosity in the group boundary, to let new ideas in, and people out. (Note that Taylor also characterised gooroos and naive enthusiasts, plus an intermediary group of oversimplifying popularisers, sometimes with deep commercial interests in the outputs of the gooroos. My alternative take on his ideas can be found here.)
New Safety Movements face a difficult balancing act. On the one hand, they should be rooted in science, and so constantly adapting (unless safety science, like human anatomy, is a dead science). One the other, businesses need a greater degree of stability and certainty. Innovators, promoters and implementers – and other stakeholders – can therefore be tempted by, or fall prey to, dogmatism. But when NSMs succumb to dogmatism, they risk becoming outdated, ultimately losing initial credibility among safety professionals and other stakeholders. The only antidote is humility, openness to critique and diverse perspectives, and continuous adjustment in light of experience and new empirical evidence and theories. along with rejection of leaderism and authoritarianism.
Postscript
This series outlines seven possible threats to New Safety Movements, based on my observation, listening, reading, and reflection over many years, concerning a wide variety of other movements: religious, social, health, and business. Not all threats apply to all New Safety Movements, but most of the threats seem to apply to most of the movements, to varying degrees. The seven threats below will each feature in subsequent posts (this post will be updated with summaries and links to each threat).
- Over-commercialism
- Egotism and leaderism
- Simplism and populism
- Dogmatism
- Ethnocentrism and neocolonialism (coming soon)
- Unprofessionalism (coming soon)
- Cynicism (coming soon)
My hope is that we can be mindful of each of these threats, and reduce – as far as possible – the destructive potential of each. This way, the positive potential that may exist in some of the various New Safety Movements can be realised without too many unintended consequences or otherwise unwanted effects.
Humanistic Systems 