Measure for Measure: Politics of Quantifying Individuals to Govern Them

IF 0.9 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.44-76
L. Thevenot
{"title":"Measure for Measure: Politics of Quantifying Individuals to Govern Them","authors":"L. Thevenot","doi":"10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.44-76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"»Maß für Maß: Die Politik, Individuen zu quantifizieren, um sie zu regieren«. This article compares a variety of modes of quantifying individuals to govern them. The analytical grid issues from a former research program on the Politics of Statistics that focused on one of these modes of governing by numbers, the statistical nation state, which is here included in an array of more recently developed governing numbers based on benchmarking, digital tracking, or self-quantifying. Three main operations differentiate modes of governing by numbers: measuring individuals for quantification, taking political measures accordingly to guide their behaviors, and an intermediate operation that is often less visible although situated between the two previous ones and needed to link them: evaluating the situation through a measured judgment that justifies the monitoring based on numbers. This analysis breaks down data into the sequential steps of the transformations chain of information formats needed to pass from an individual person to a governing figure. The plurality of modes of evaluation, and its reduction by quantification, is given high significance, as well as the way each mode of governing affects individuals, their identity and their possibility to critically reflect and question.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.44-76","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

»Maß für Maß: Die Politik, Individuen zu quantifizieren, um sie zu regieren«. This article compares a variety of modes of quantifying individuals to govern them. The analytical grid issues from a former research program on the Politics of Statistics that focused on one of these modes of governing by numbers, the statistical nation state, which is here included in an array of more recently developed governing numbers based on benchmarking, digital tracking, or self-quantifying. Three main operations differentiate modes of governing by numbers: measuring individuals for quantification, taking political measures accordingly to guide their behaviors, and an intermediate operation that is often less visible although situated between the two previous ones and needed to link them: evaluating the situation through a measured judgment that justifies the monitoring based on numbers. This analysis breaks down data into the sequential steps of the transformations chain of information formats needed to pass from an individual person to a governing figure. The plurality of modes of evaluation, and its reduction by quantification, is given high significance, as well as the way each mode of governing affects individuals, their identity and their possibility to critically reflect and question.
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
一报还一报:量化个人以治理他们的政治
[masß fzr masß: Die Politik, Individuen zu quantifizieren, um sie zu regieren]。本文比较了各种量化个体的模式来治理个体。分析网格问题来自统计政治学以前的一个研究项目,该项目关注的是这些数字治理模式中的一种,即统计民族国家,这里包括一系列最近开发的基于基准、数字跟踪或自我量化的治理数字。三种主要操作区分了数字治理模式:衡量个人进行量化,采取相应的政治措施来指导他们的行为,以及一种中间操作,这种操作通常不太明显,但位于前两种操作之间,需要将它们联系起来:通过经过衡量的判断来评估情况,证明基于数字的监测是合理的。这种分析将数据分解为信息格式转换链的顺序步骤,这些信息格式需要从个人传递到管理人物。评估模式的多元化及其量化的简化,以及每一种治理模式影响个人的方式、他们的身份以及他们批判性反思和质疑的可能性,都被赋予了高度的意义。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erosion of Solidarity in France and Welfare Conventions: The New Role of Complementary Health Insurance. Economics of Convention Meets Canguilhem “Targeting Lifestyle" Conditions: What Justifications for Treatment? Medicine and economic knowledge : the relevance of career in the study of transformations in the healthcare system Perspectives on the economics and sociology of health. Contributions from the institutionalist approach of economics of convention – an introduction
×
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