nÃo hà / Trata-se de estudo teÃrico acerca da normatividade caracterÃstica dos discursos que prescrevem o âbom comportamentoâ no trabalho. Amparado pelas discussÃes gadamerianas, parte-se do âpreconceito inicialâ, de que tais discursos sÃo passÃveis de uma crÃtica Ãtica. Os discursos que prescrevem jeitos de ser, sentir, falar e comportar-se no trabalho, sÃo primeiramente visados em textos informativos do cotidiano, presentes em um jornal e uma revista. Tais textos, apresentados de forma exemplificativa, funcionam como disparadores das questÃes centrais a serem enfrentadas pelo trabalho: seria possÃvel articular uma crÃtica de fundamentaÃÃo Ãtica a tais discursos? Em que eles seriam injustos? O recurso à crÃtica que se articula no campo psicossociolÃgico à o movimento inicial da pesquisa. Encontra-se um pensamento crÃtico articulado acerca da distÃncia dos discursos que âprescrevem autonomiaâ e que âobrigam a participarâ, por exemplo. Trata-se de um discurso paradoxal. Percebe-se o lugar de destaque da Teoria do Capital Humano como tecnologia de âautogestÃoâ, âinternalizaÃÃo do controleâ. Passa-se pela contextualizaÃÃo do discurso no campo mais amplo das transformaÃÃes sociais pelas quais passa a sociedade contemporÃnea lÃquida e suas inversÃes das responsabilidades pÃblicas e privadas. O discurso normativo do bom comportamento acompanha, ou vem acompanhado, das transformaÃÃes da sociedade privatizada, que cria o sujeito psicologizado. Enfrenta-se, por fim, o desafio de elaborar uma crÃtica que se faÃa notar como eminentemente Ãtica. A noÃÃo de subjetividade enquanto passividade frente ao Outro traz o Dizer Ãtico de LÃvinas ao dito do texto acadÃmico. O solo da Ãtica à o encontro face ao Outro, Ãnico Outro, desnecessidade de leis, de regras. Com a entrada em cena do Terceiro, sempre a partir de LÃvinas, tenta-se articular uma justiÃa que seja o equivalente social do apelo Ãtico da paridade eu-Outro. O julgamento Ãtico se faz necessÃrio com o Terceiro. Entram em cena as regras, as leis, o direito. O discurso prescritivo do âbom comportamentoâ no trabalho se revela como uma lei injusta sem Alteridade. O encurvamento do eu sobre si na autogestÃo do Capital Humano mostra-se como fechamento ao Estrangeiro. O preconceito inicial de que tais discursos sÃo passÃveis de uma crÃtica Ãtica parece legÃtimo. / This is a theoretical study on the normativity of speech which guides the âgood behaviorâ at work. Based on Gadamerian discussions, we start from the âinitial prejudiceâ, which states the speech is subject to a critical ethics. The speech which regulate the ways of being, feeling, speaking and behaving at work are primarily seen in daily informative texts, such as newspapers and magazines. Such texts, presented in a sample way, work as triggers of the main question to be faced at work: is it possible to articulate a critique of ethical basis to these kinds of speech? How fair would they be? The resource to the critiques articulated in the psycho-sociological field is the starting point of this research. An argumentative articulated thought about the distance between the speeches that âprescribe autonomyâ and the ones that âobligate participationâ, for example, could be found. It is about a paradoxical speech. We could also notice the importance of the Human Capital Theory as the âself-managementâ technology and âcontrol internalizationâ. We explore the speech contextualization in the large field of social transformations which the net contemporary society goes through and its inversions of public and private responsibilities. The normative speech of good behavior follows, or is followed by, the changings of the privatized society, which creates the psychologized subject. Lastly, we face the challenge of elaborating a critique which is eminently ethical. The notion of subjectivity as passivity before the Other brings LÃvinas‟ ethical saying to the academic text. The Ethics‟ soil stands for the meeting facing the Other, only Other, needless of rules and laws. With the Third coming in, always according to LÃvinas, it is articulated a justice which is the social equivalent of the ethical appeal about the me-Other parity. The ethical judgement is made with the Third. Then, the rules, laws and rights come into the scene. The prescriptive speech of âgood behaviorâ at work shows itself as an unfair law without Alterity. The self-curving over itself at the self-management of Human Capital is shown as the closing to the Other. The initial prejudice which state these kinds of speech are passive of an ethical critique seems rightful.

The Ethics of Liberation in the Age of Globalisation and Exclusion by the Latin American philosopher Enrique Dussel aims to be 'a day to day ethics, starting from and in favour of the immense majorities of humanity excluded from globalisation, in the historic 'nonnality' that is presently prevalent' 1 • Dussel's Ethics is based around the material principle of 'the production, reproduction and development of life', the formal discursive principle that decision-making processes should be open to all those affected by them, and the principle of (ethical and empirical) feasibility. Ethical critique and liberatory practice, Dussel argues, should start from and be carried out by the 'victims' of the partial or non-realisation of these principles. Nevertheless, the discussion of Dussel's philosophy has tended to stay at the philosophical level. This thesis moves beyond this discussion by relating the universal principles Dussel proposes to the concrete experiences of two movements that are insisting on universalistic normative ideas in the context of globalisation and eicclusion: The Zapatistas in Mexico and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save Narmada Movement - NBA) in India. My study of these concrete struggles to challenge victimisation reveals both the similarities between their nonnative content and Dussel's principles and the complex questions that arise in attempts to realise these normative principles precisely in the situations of domination and exclusion that Dussel takes as his starting-point. While some of these questions constitute a challenge to rethink aspects of the philosophical debate, others can only legitimately be answered by those who participate in practical attempts to challenge material and discursive exclusion. From this background, the relationship between philosophy and practice becomes an important question in itself. / The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust