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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|