Plague Markings: Doors and Disease

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY Cultural History Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.3366/cult.2023.0285
Edward Brookes
{"title":"Plague Markings: Doors and Disease","authors":"Edward Brookes","doi":"10.3366/cult.2023.0285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout history marking the home has often been used to convey urgent information about the ‘health’ of its inhabitants. These strategies frequently target the door or entrance to the household, as it presents a porous boundary between public and private spheres. This chapter engages with several historical examples that examine how the door has been marked during periods of ‘death’ and ‘disease’ in order to prevent further spread of contagion. Specifically, it explores the use of the Plague Cross during the Great Plague of London in 1665, which became a means to regulate the movement of the infected. This is compared with modern-day forms of inscribing the door and how ‘Plague Markings’ have re-emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion considers that while these forms of inscription often serve valuable public health functions, they are also embroiled in a distinct politics of regulation. In many cases, marking sites of ‘contamination’ facilitates the categorisation of the ‘Other’ which defines who and what is able to enter society. Inscribing the door thus becomes an act of ‘the powerful’, signalling who is able to exert control over the body and the threshold.","PeriodicalId":41779,"journal":{"name":"Cultural History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/cult.2023.0285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Throughout history marking the home has often been used to convey urgent information about the ‘health’ of its inhabitants. These strategies frequently target the door or entrance to the household, as it presents a porous boundary between public and private spheres. This chapter engages with several historical examples that examine how the door has been marked during periods of ‘death’ and ‘disease’ in order to prevent further spread of contagion. Specifically, it explores the use of the Plague Cross during the Great Plague of London in 1665, which became a means to regulate the movement of the infected. This is compared with modern-day forms of inscribing the door and how ‘Plague Markings’ have re-emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion considers that while these forms of inscription often serve valuable public health functions, they are also embroiled in a distinct politics of regulation. In many cases, marking sites of ‘contamination’ facilitates the categorisation of the ‘Other’ which defines who and what is able to enter society. Inscribing the door thus becomes an act of ‘the powerful’, signalling who is able to exert control over the body and the threshold.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
瘟疫标记:门和疾病
纵观历史,房屋的标志经常被用来传达关于其居民“健康”的紧急信息。这些策略通常针对家庭的门或入口,因为它在公共和私人领域之间呈现出多孔的边界。本章涉及几个历史例子,这些例子研究了在“死亡”和“疾病”时期如何标记门,以防止传染病的进一步传播。具体来说,它探讨了1665年伦敦大瘟疫期间鼠疫十字架的使用,它成为了一种调节感染者运动的手段。这与现代形式的门上铭文以及“瘟疫标记”如何在COVID-19大流行之后重新出现进行了比较。讨论认为,虽然这些形式的铭文往往具有宝贵的公共卫生功能,但它们也卷入了一种独特的监管政治。在许多情况下,标记“污染”地点有助于对“他者”进行分类,这定义了谁和什么能够进入社会。因此,在门上刻字成为一种“强者”的行为,表明谁能够控制身体和门槛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cultural History
Cultural History HISTORY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
‘He had thoughtlessly accepted certain gifts’: Corruption and Normative Behaviour for Roman Magistrates Discursive Constructions of Corruption in Ancient Rome: Introduction Why a Focus on Spatial History? Competition and Corruption: Sodalicia in Late Republican Rome Review of Doing Spatial History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1