Paper short abstract:

Danger and safety are not opposed in Dutch firefighting – they have to do with one another in more complex ways. Importing outside logics when attending to this practice obscures these vital nuances; a good intervention in this practice requires tinkering with both, and their relation in practice.

Paper long abstract:

To describe what is at stake in Dutch firefighting, the terms ‘gevaarlijk’ (‘dangerous’) and ‘veilig’ (safe) are useful. But entering the field assuming these two terms are opposite ends in a single register – as is commonly done – belies and obscures their relation in practice. We argue that much can be learned about a practice when semantic relations aren’t given. As firefighters perform ‘veiligheid’ not as the property of a situation but rather as a constant task, danger and safety emerge tightly together; one begets the other and makes it necessary. ‘Gevaar’ needs to be performed so firefighters can be ‘veilig’: most accidents occur in situations where there is little danger. This link, however, must be performed well: in the face of mounting danger, safety practice can still fail, as in the case of a firefighter who feels unsafe with her current team, and fears things may go wrong when danger looms. Meanwhile, which ‘gevaar’ is mounting is not trivial: shifting measurements mean shifting dangers; as ‘danger’ morphs, so does the protocol for ‘safety’. Sounds complex? That is because this case stretches what is possible to articulate in the common logics or tropes to describe ‘danger’ and ‘safety’ through. Latest changes to firefighting practice do not result in either ‘more’ or ‘less safety’, as outside logics may imply. A good improvement of firefighting means tinkering and playing with the relation between danger and safety that is at play within. So go the blazing-hot complexities of relating terms in practice.