To conclude this overview of the meanings of dispositive in the humanities disciplines, whether sociology, education, philosophy, management or ICS, we can say that this concept has technical, organizational and cultural dimensions. This is what we have tried to show in Part 1.
Making distinctions between tool, instrument, machine and apparatus enabled us to show the specificities linked to technique. In this technical perspective, the relationship between humans and their tools was also discussed to highlight the importance of this relationship in the development of know-how. Likewise, in relation to technology, it was possible to link the increasingly significant place granted to dispositives with the emergence of rationality and efficiency amongst the concerns of industrial societies.
To this technical dimension, we can add an organizational dimension. In fact, a dispositive is a collective action framework and a space in which periodic actions take place. Roles are defined, especially in framing documents, but as soon as an individual assumes a role, tactics, diversions and adaptations are performed. The dispositive is also a way of creating new partnerships and hybridizations, which modify institutions in a flexible manner.
Finally, if the dispositive is both a framework and a space for collective actions in which documents circulate and where humans act to manufacture products and/or provide services, we showed that it was also a tool to inculcate representations ...