“Her Language Must Be the Language of Figures”. Medical Statistics of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia: A Comparative Perspective

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestio Rossica Pub Date : 2023-06-28 DOI:10.15826/qr.2023.2.801
R. Mitrofanov
{"title":"“Her Language Must Be the Language of Figures”. Medical Statistics of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"R. Mitrofanov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the history of the establishment of departmental medical statistics in the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century. Starting from M. Foucault’s concepts of biopolitics and governmentality, historians have studied the medical and statistical mechanisms for representing “public health” in England, France, and other West European countries in some detail. The case of the Russian Empire remains unexplored in this respect. Researchers have predominantly turned to hygienic statistics and data on mortality and fertility in Russian cities of the late imperial period, while the early period has long remained untouched. Moreover, these data have been analyzed apart from the transnational context of their creation. This article seeks to fill this gap partially. By comparing the introduction of two key medico-statistical indicators in Prussia and Russia (the nomenclature of diseases and the indicator of causes of death by disease), it has been argued that the Russian authorities, in their governing practices, followed mainly the Prussian path. In addition, both countries came to the same statistical model of representing the “public health” of the nation/empire. However, in the case of the Russian Empire, this transition was stretched over many decades and was carried out haphazardly. The article analyzes the main causes of this uneven implementation. In conclusion, it discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each country’s medical and statistical models.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the history of the establishment of departmental medical statistics in the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century. Starting from M. Foucault’s concepts of biopolitics and governmentality, historians have studied the medical and statistical mechanisms for representing “public health” in England, France, and other West European countries in some detail. The case of the Russian Empire remains unexplored in this respect. Researchers have predominantly turned to hygienic statistics and data on mortality and fertility in Russian cities of the late imperial period, while the early period has long remained untouched. Moreover, these data have been analyzed apart from the transnational context of their creation. This article seeks to fill this gap partially. By comparing the introduction of two key medico-statistical indicators in Prussia and Russia (the nomenclature of diseases and the indicator of causes of death by disease), it has been argued that the Russian authorities, in their governing practices, followed mainly the Prussian path. In addition, both countries came to the same statistical model of representing the “public health” of the nation/empire. However, in the case of the Russian Empire, this transition was stretched over many decades and was carried out haphazardly. The article analyzes the main causes of this uneven implementation. In conclusion, it discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each country’s medical and statistical models.
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
"她的语言一定是人物的语言"俄罗斯帝国和普鲁士王国的医学统计:比较视角
本文考察了19世纪上半叶俄罗斯帝国和普鲁士王国建立部门医学统计的历史。从福柯的生命政治学和治理学的概念出发,历史学家们详细研究了英国、法国和其他西欧国家代表“公共卫生”的医学和统计机制。在这方面,俄罗斯帝国的情况仍未得到探讨。研究人员主要转向卫生统计数据,以及帝国晚期俄罗斯城市的死亡率和生育率数据,而早期的数据长期未被触及。此外,这些数据是在其创建的跨国背景之外进行分析的。本文试图部分填补这一空白。通过比较普鲁士和俄罗斯采用的两项关键医学统计指标(疾病命名法和疾病致死原因指标),人们认为,俄罗斯当局在其管理实践中主要遵循了普鲁士的道路。此外,两国采用了相同的统计模型来代表国家/帝国的"公共卫生"。然而,在俄罗斯帝国的情况下,这种转变持续了几十年,而且是随意进行的。文章分析了造成这种不均衡实施的主要原因。最后,讨论了各国医学和统计模式的优缺点。
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
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
期刊最新文献
Ancient Heritage in the History of the Synod by Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza: Dedication to the Russian Tsar An Uncompleted Machine-Building Giant in the Urals: Mobilisation Policy and Construction Practice Between Russia and Western Europe: The Diplomatic Languages of Prince Ivan Scherbatov, a Russian Representative at the Spanish Court Il parlait assez bien français et plusieurs langues: Foreign Language Acquisition and the Diplomatic Self-Fashioning of Prince Boris Ivanovich Kurakin The Fifth Kingdom, Yuri Buida’s Historiographical Metafiction: Mystification of Historical Conceptualisation
×
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