Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Fabio de Oliveira
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Instituto de Psicologia (IP/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 1997-05-16 |
| Examining board members: |
Sigmar Malvezzi;
Arakcy Martins Rodrigues;
Mary Jane Paris Spink
|
| Advisor: | Sigmar Malvezzi |
| Field of knowledge: | Humanities - Psychology |
| Indexed in: |
Banco de Dados Bibliográficos da USP-DEDALUS;
Index Psi Teses - IP/USP |
| Location: | Universidade de São Paulo. Biblioteca do Instituto de Psicologia; HF5548.8; O48c |
| Abstract | |
Work accidents are the outcome of the ways societies produce the conditions of their existence, and, at the same time, become social objects through theoretical-practical constructions. In this second process, conceptions based on personal or psychological factors that picture workers as responsible for accidents have been verified. Considering consequences for health policy, preventive and vindication actions, these conceptions in industrial workers discursive practices were investigated in an attempt to identify interpretative repertoires and their rhetoric and argumentative features. Explanatory theories constructed in the field of accidentology and psychology were surveyed and appreciated and their diffusion in Brazil was briefly investigated. Simultaneously, a case study in a metallurgic company was conducted, based on observations, informal conversations, surveys of documents and interviews with twenty workers. A pervasive presence of the Heinrichs Dominoes Theory was verified in the shared patterns of understanding and the predominance of accounts based on unsafe acts, sustained by naturalization of risks and institutionalized practices of diffusion. Nevertheless, the discursive construction of accidents occurs in a dillematic way, contradictions among the different repertoires and the presence of denaturalizer events both of which product semantic ruptures and manifestations of resistance were found out. Thus, the research reviewed polyssemic and rhetoric features of the discursive practices which make sense of work accidents. It also reviewed the influence of scientific thinking and institutional practices on the accident understanding which points out the need of construction of counter-hegemonic discourse for the contestation of ideas that blame workers for work accidents (AU) | |