Читать книгу Cindynics, The Science of Danger - Guy Planchette - Страница 13

Research continued around the notion of a system and the living organism model. One observation emerged by analogy with the weakening of the immune system. Cindynics was then born.

Evaluating the importance of this cascade of events, Lagadec published a book in 1987 entitled “Le risque technologique majeur” [LAG 83]². At the same time, Kervern, with the help of a team of researchers, set out to understand the reasons for this chain of failures. They studied a series of accidents, whether technological, natural or domestic, and deduced that the causes were not only due to technical failures, but also to those of the human operator. These feedback studies revealed strange similarities with the notion of immune “deficiency” in living organisms. By analogy, they concluded that an accident occurs when pathogenic elements (such as gaps, vagueness or ambiguities) are created within organizations and do not encounter “appropriate defense systems”. This discovery reinforced the primacy of the concept of danger over that of risk, and the name deficit was given to these pathogenic elements. This is how the science of danger or cindynics (name taken from the Greek kindunos) was born, bringing to light, at system level, the notion of systemic cindynogenic deficit. And, these pioneers, from all of the “small islands” explored, were thus able to identify the archipelago of danger [KER 91]. The resulting book, “L’archipel du danger”, has a postface by Laborit, a medical surgeon and neurobiologist, who was one of the pioneers of complexity theory and the initiator of complex thinking.

The small islands of the archipelago (probability calculations, data processing, actuarial calculations, financial mathematics, psychology, sociology, phenomenology, ontology, etc.) were already sufficient in number to justify the plural displayed in the term cindynics.

Here, the necessary awareness of the danger was regained.