La conceptualisation du travail, le visible et l'invisible
Abstract Can work be understood as one, clearly relevant parameter in historical studies ? If so, it would be necessary to provide a sufficiently unambiguous definition in order to measure its role in historical processes. However, there is a decidely obscure element which enters into all uses of th...
שמור ב:
| מחבר ראשי: | |
|---|---|
| פורמט: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| שפה: | Français |
| יצא לאור: |
2004
|
| גישה מקוונת: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| סיכום: | Abstract
Can work be understood as one, clearly relevant parameter in historical studies ? If so, it would be necessary to provide a sufficiently unambiguous definition in order to measure its role in historical processes. However, there is a decidely obscure element which enters into all uses of the word « work ». This is clearly suggested in three « significant dead ends » : the attempt to date the « birth of work » ; the search for its « impossible meaning » ; the ambiguities in the uses of the concept of the « division of labor ». These dead ends are the result of an insufficient taking into consideration of the « invisible » dimension of work that the ergonomists help us to situate. There is, consequently, an « ergonomical » approach consisting in an attempt to consistently consider the « activity of work » when using the abstract concept of work.
|
|---|