Glossary entry (derived from question below)
русский term or phrase:
человек-деталь
английский translation:
a cog in the machine, a human cog
Added to glossary by
Hasmik Avetyan
Aug 4, 2013 09:58
10 yrs ago
русский term
человек-деталь
русский => английский
Общественные науки
Общественные науки, социология, этика и т.д.
Эффективность производства постоянно растет. Рост эффективности требует роста специализации. На пределе специализации, которая характерна для поздних сообществ, человек должен уделить все свои силы специализации, что и превращает его в "человека-деталь".
Proposed translations
(английский)
3 +5 | a cog in the machine | Alla Kobkova |
3 +3 | human detail | Susan Welsh |
4 | a human cog | Michael Korovkin |
3 | human-robot or (simply) robot or robotic tool... | Anna_Furman |
Proposed translations
+5
20 мин
Selected
a cog in the machine
Буквально "человек-винтик." Думаю, речь об этом.
Example sentence:
...the performance of each individual worker is mathematically measured, each man becomes a little cog in the machine ... (M. Weber, Bureaucracy)
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Спасибо!"
8 мин
human-robot or (simply) robot or robotic tool...
Первое, что пришло на ум:)... Извините...
P.S. Ищите "здравое зерно:)"...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2013-08-04 11:41:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Да..., и human_robot никуда не годится... Уж скорее robotman... (но это уже зарезервировано ((как поняла из сети:)...))
P.S. Ищите "здравое зерно:)"...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2013-08-04 11:41:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Да..., и human_robot никуда не годится... Уж скорее robotman... (но это уже зарезервировано ((как поняла из сети:)...))
+3
2 час
human detail
This is an interesting challenge. Words like automaton, robot, cog in the machine evoke to me more the dehumanization of an earlier age (as portrayed in Charlie Chaplain's Modern Times, where he becomes literally part of the mass-production machine). The person doesn't have to know anything but how to do one repetitive motion over and over again, the whole day.
But the text we are considering is of a different character: the person does know things, even perhaps many things of a highly specialized nature, and uses them in his work, yet it is deeply dehumanizing, because his work does not summon up his fundamental humanity, and he has no conception of the world of which is tiny corner is just one part.
Therefore I tried to think of something that keeps the idea of human/человек in there.
This interesting quote is from the link below (emphasis added, although I don't think "learned ignoramus" is a good translation for your phrase):
[QUOTE]The specialist "knows" very well his own tiny corner of the universe; he is radically ignorant of all the rest…. Previously, men could be divided simply into the learned and the ignorant…. But your specialist cannot be brought in under either of these two categories. He is not learned, for he is formally ignorant of all that does not enter into his specialty; but neither is he ignorant, because he is "a scientist," and "knows" very well his own tiny portion of the universe. We shall have to say that he is a learned ignoramus, which is a very serious matter, as it implies that he is a person who is ignorant, not in the fashion of the ignorant man, but with all the petulance of one who is learned in his own special line.
But the text we are considering is of a different character: the person does know things, even perhaps many things of a highly specialized nature, and uses them in his work, yet it is deeply dehumanizing, because his work does not summon up his fundamental humanity, and he has no conception of the world of which is tiny corner is just one part.
Therefore I tried to think of something that keeps the idea of human/человек in there.
This interesting quote is from the link below (emphasis added, although I don't think "learned ignoramus" is a good translation for your phrase):
[QUOTE]The specialist "knows" very well his own tiny corner of the universe; he is radically ignorant of all the rest…. Previously, men could be divided simply into the learned and the ignorant…. But your specialist cannot be brought in under either of these two categories. He is not learned, for he is formally ignorant of all that does not enter into his specialty; but neither is he ignorant, because he is "a scientist," and "knows" very well his own tiny portion of the universe. We shall have to say that he is a learned ignoramus, which is a very serious matter, as it implies that he is a person who is ignorant, not in the fashion of the ignorant man, but with all the petulance of one who is learned in his own special line.
Reference:
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/education-in-america-8-the-multiversity#axzz2azyteO3Y
Peer comment(s):
agree |
MariyaN (X)
: I think yours is the only correct interpretation of the term.
4 час
|
Thank you, Mariya
|
|
agree |
Oleksiy Markunin
: Perfectly explained!
7 час
|
Thanks, Oleksiy
|
|
agree |
Veronica Kostenko
14 час
|
Thanks, Veronica
|
2 час
a human cog
...
Something went wrong...