Hello David and all - might I ask one question here. I do not know that it is
the right one but maybe something moves through it - maybe - I try :-
In the domain of risk just what is death? Is death a risk? Or is it the "early
death" that is the risk? Or is it the death that is without meaning that is the
real risk?
I have no intention here to situate "risk" in the macho-bravado sense of
"limits" and so on. All I ask is the real connection between "risk" and "death"?
( I do not presume that death is a danger and nor do I presume that death is a
"loss") but that does not mean to say that life is not a "value" in one way or
another - perhaps.
maybe
steve bowles
DCrossland wrote:
> Hello Chris
>
> Are you sure that it is the definition of risk that is the construct
> "negotiated continuously with the client" or is it the acceptable level of
> risk? Perhaps the emphasis varies depending on which area of OAE one is
> working in?
>
> While I do not disagree with what you write about risk as metaphor I think
> that for many outdoor 'instructors'/'leaders' the issue of 'professional'
> risk and 'real' risk is actual and literal, not metaphorical. If you lose
> a student on the sea or in the hills the press, public, courts are not
> concerned with the "interplay of deep metaphor" but with whether you were
> negligent or not, with whether the level of risk was acceptable (where
> acceptable will be decided in the courts). The family and friends of the
> unfortunate student, and the instructor, are concerned with the above but
> also with coming to terms with the fact that risk can entail 'loss' and all
> this process involves.
>
> Risk in this business is a many faceted concept and would include the
> following:
> 1. The risk accepted by any instructor/leader working in an adventure
> environment - personal risk (physical, emotional, spiritual), professional
> risk, commercial risk.
>
> 2. The risk accepted/placed on the client - physical, emotional, spiritual,
> metaphorical, real or perceived
>
> 3. The risk to the provider organisation
>
> 4. The risk to the environment
>
> 5. The risk to the sport/activity if we are working with specific activities
>
> 6. The risk to society of becoming too 'safe' (Libby Purves once wrote an
> excellent article about the cotton wool generation)
>
> I'm sure list members could add to this but perhaps it provides a starting
> point for thinking about risk in a wider context. Anyway I'll take a risk
> and post it!
>
> David Crossland
>
> At 10:12 10/02/00 +0000, Chris Loynes wrote:
> >Hi Peter and all
> >
> >I disagree with your opening premise. We do not have, cannot have and
> >should not have a central operational definition of risk. Such an idea
> >is a construct negotiated continuously with the client, within the
> >providing organisation and with the field. It is academia's job to watch
> >and comment on this evolving picture for the insight it gives us on the
> >process. Your equation is a good example as public outrage enters the
> >frame!
> >
> >For the clients this negotiation and how risk is understood as a
> >metaphor in their lives is part of the core process. So we have risk as
> >avoidance of self, risk as transformation of self, risk as aliveness,
> >risk as cry for help, and and and .... (see Johan Hovelynck's pieces in
> >recent Horizons for the interplay of deep metaphor in our work)
> >
> >In fact if the field decided on a central definition I think I would
> >make it my job to provide alternatives! And certainly to work outside
> >the frame.
> >
> >What you may be suggesting is that we need a working definition to talk
> >with Health and Safety beaurocracies or educational institutions. This
> >language is useful, functional but not alive and as worked/played with
> >in the field by a leader.
> >
> >Sorry to go outside the box but its important to me that, as Monty
> >Python would say, we hang on to our woody words - words that are not
> >fixed in meaning even in the moment.
> >
> >Chris Loynes
> >
> >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|