20. Jahrhundert
Refine
Year of publication
- 2010 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (3) (remove)
Language
- German (3)
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Early twentieth-century managers identified the human factor in industry as one of the crucial problems of their time. This article reviews recent research on the development from unsystematic labour management to human resources management. Current studies transcend the well-known labour process debate, which focussed on management’s intent to control workers.Growing concern is laid on the fact that some early twentieth-century employers already practised strategies, which are characteristic of post-Fordism, e. g. that it would be more important to utilise individuals than control them with discipline. Studies on scientific management, social engineering, and the human relations approach are reviewed. Furthermore, I shall discuss the question which ones of these concepts were in fact adapted on work floor level. However, it has been proved that regimes of workforce government due to the power of foremen and supervisors were partly independent of higher management’s strategies.
This articles shows from a gender perspective how in twentieth century Germany the sciences of work dealt with the problems of the factory’s spatial order and the human factor. Starting in the 1920s, workers were no longer regarded as mere objects of discipline but rather as individuals whose individuality was to be utilized. As the women workforce grew, also the scientists’ of work interest in the gender question gained significance. Consequently, ergonomics argued for workplace engineering and a new form of leadership that took special care of “psychological and aesthetic” female needs. Therefore, the discourse on humanizing work, becoming hegemonic after 1945, had gender roots usually neglected by historical research.
Grenzpfähle der Tabuzone. Vom schwierigen Umgang mit Krieg, Gewalt und toten Körpern im Museum
(2010)
Zum Krieg gehört der Tod: Für den Historiker Michael Geyer sind „die willentliche, kalkulierte, menschliche Planung des Massen-Todes, sein öffentlicher Gebrauch im Gefecht und die Erfahrung der Überlebenden mit dem Massentod“ Grundlage des kriegerischen Handelns. Diese Praxis zu rekonstruieren sei Aufgabe der Kriegsgeschichte. Nicht das Gefecht allein, sondern das Töten im Gefecht gehöre ins Zentrum der Analyse, denn „Kriegsgeschichte ist Geschichte organisierter Tötungsgewalt.“ Mit Blick auf Carl von Clausewitz’ Beschreibung der Atmosphäre des Krieges zwischen Gefahr, körperlicher Anstrengung, Ungewissheit und Zufall formulierte Geyer: „Kein Zweifel, Krieg als physische Gewalt spielt sich in Form widerstrebender Gemütsbewegungen in den Köpfen und Leibern der Soldaten ab. Die Arbeit am Tode ist, als Arbeit am Leib, eine Arbeit in Metaphern. Sie kommt zu keinem Ende, da das Zerbrechen der Körper sich der Darstellung entzieht.“