000			01931cam a2200193 4500500
005			20250112025246.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aScheller, Livia _eauthor
245	0	0	_aClinical Analysis of Activity, Hatred, and Work
260			_c2002.
500			_a69
520			_aIn this article, we seek to explain that while work has always at its center the activity itself, the conflicts and fractures present in so many professional situations—often included under the umbrella term of “moral harassment”—could still be resolved, according to the methodological conditions we shall attempt to explain. But when this is not the case—meaning that the resolution only occurs for some and not for others—what should be our conclusion? Are there subjects for whom something other than the activity necessary to accomplish their work is central to their working space-time? This is the question we ask, though we could put it another way. What does work activity actually consist in? Instead of talking about what it is, we can define it according to its orientation. The activity is still addressed: it is engaged through the mediation of an object to be dealt with, in an inevitable encounter with the other. It could be that the failure to overcome conflicts in the workplace is related to unresolved obstacles in (at least) one of these directions of the activity. In this case, the metastable balance needed for this triple direction of the activity is upset by too much investment in one of its poles. This is the hypothesis we put forward for the situation we discuss in this article.
690			_aaddressed activity
690			_aspecific activity
690			_aco-analysis of the activity of work
786	0		_nCliniques méditerranéennes | o 66 | 2 | 2002-10-01 | p. 85-103 | 0762-7491
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-cliniques-mediterraneennes-2002-2-page-85?lang=en
999			_c148280 _d148280