叶卡捷琳堡医疗公司的民族主义冲突:以二十世纪初危机为例

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestio Rossica Pub Date : 2023-06-28 DOI:10.15826/qr.2023.2.804
E. Chernoukhov
{"title":"叶卡捷琳堡医疗公司的民族主义冲突:以二十世纪初危机为例","authors":"E. Chernoukhov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two-year confrontation in the Ural Medical Society (hereinafter – UMS) in Yekaterinburg in 1905–1907 has not been an object of scholarly analysis previously. This is largely due to the religious aspect, i. e. the withdrawal of all Jewish doctors from the organization. The reconstruction of contradictions in the corporate medical environment of Yekaterinburg relied on the historical-genetic method within the framework of anthropologically oriented history. For information about the participants in the conflict, the author refers to a consolidated database created by him on doctors who served in Perm province. New documents from periodical press and archival funds play an essential role in understanding certain aspects of the confrontation. The article restores a complex of interconnected objective and subjective contradictions in the medical corporation of Yekaterinburg in the early twentieth century, which was aggravated during the revolutionary upheavals of 1905–1907. The determining factor for the beginning of the confrontation in the spring of 1905 was the actual erosion of the basic principle behind the UMS, which was its being apolitical. It was consistently observed starting with the establishment of the organization, which led to a deterioration in relations between its long-standing members. At the heart of acute political and interpersonal disagreements were different ideas of UMS members on national healthcare. They naturally aggravated during revolutionary upheavals and an oversaturation of the doctor “market” in Yekaterinburg. The peak of the growing confrontation was an unexpected scandal for the participants in the spring of 1906. It unfolded because of the intolerant wording in a letter asking for help with finding a qualified ophthalmologist for the eye clinic created in Yekaterinburg. Some of the members of the UMS extremely painfully perceived the harsh assessments of the ambiguous act of A. A. Mislavsky, the oldest honorary doctor of Yekaterinburg. As a result, the anti-Semitic component became not an “unfortunate misunderstanding” but a large-scale exacerbation in the long-term confrontation. In addition, the search for reasonable compromises that had begun was interrupted by external interference, which led to a new round of conflict. As a result, a large-scale confrontation in the UMS, during which its leadership changed three times, ended in considerable losses in 1907. A logical consequence was the return to apoliticism as the basic principle of UMS’s activity.","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":"{\"title\":\"Nationalist Conflict in the Medical Corporation of Yekaterinburg: A Case Study in the Early Twentieth-Century Crisis\",\"authors\":\"E. Chernoukhov\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/qr.2023.2.804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The two-year confrontation in the Ural Medical Society (hereinafter – UMS) in Yekaterinburg in 1905–1907 has not been an object of scholarly analysis previously. This is largely due to the religious aspect, i. e. the withdrawal of all Jewish doctors from the organization. The reconstruction of contradictions in the corporate medical environment of Yekaterinburg relied on the historical-genetic method within the framework of anthropologically oriented history. For information about the participants in the conflict, the author refers to a consolidated database created by him on doctors who served in Perm province. New documents from periodical press and archival funds play an essential role in understanding certain aspects of the confrontation. The article restores a complex of interconnected objective and subjective contradictions in the medical corporation of Yekaterinburg in the early twentieth century, which was aggravated during the revolutionary upheavals of 1905–1907. The determining factor for the beginning of the confrontation in the spring of 1905 was the actual erosion of the basic principle behind the UMS, which was its being apolitical. It was consistently observed starting with the establishment of the organization, which led to a deterioration in relations between its long-standing members. At the heart of acute political and interpersonal disagreements were different ideas of UMS members on national healthcare. They naturally aggravated during revolutionary upheavals and an oversaturation of the doctor “market” in Yekaterinburg. The peak of the growing confrontation was an unexpected scandal for the participants in the spring of 1906. It unfolded because of the intolerant wording in a letter asking for help with finding a qualified ophthalmologist for the eye clinic created in Yekaterinburg. Some of the members of the UMS extremely painfully perceived the harsh assessments of the ambiguous act of A. A. Mislavsky, the oldest honorary doctor of Yekaterinburg. As a result, the anti-Semitic component became not an “unfortunate misunderstanding” but a large-scale exacerbation in the long-term confrontation. In addition, the search for reasonable compromises that had begun was interrupted by external interference, which led to a new round of conflict. As a result, a large-scale confrontation in the UMS, during which its leadership changed three times, ended in considerable losses in 1907. A logical consequence was the return to apoliticism as the basic principle of UMS’s activity.\",\"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.2023.2.804\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.804","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

摘要

1905-1907年在叶卡捷琳堡乌拉尔医学会(以下简称乌拉尔医学会)为期两年的对抗,此前并没有成为学术分析的对象。这主要是由于宗教方面的原因,即所有犹太医生都退出了该组织。叶卡捷琳堡企业医疗环境中的矛盾重构依赖于人类学历史框架下的历史遗传学方法。关于冲突参与者的资料,提交人参考了他建立的关于在彼尔姆省服役的医生的综合数据库。来自期刊出版社和档案基金的新文件对了解对抗的某些方面起着至关重要的作用。本文还原了20世纪初叶卡捷琳堡医疗公司中相互关联的客观和主观矛盾的复杂性,这种矛盾在1905-1907年的革命动荡中加剧。1905年春天对抗开始的决定性因素是统一运动背后的基本原则的实际侵蚀,即它的非政治性。这种情况从本组织成立开始就一直存在,这导致其长期成员之间的关系恶化。在尖锐的政治和人际分歧的核心是UMS成员对国家医疗保健的不同想法。在革命动荡和叶卡捷琳堡医生“市场”过度饱和的情况下,这种情况自然会加剧。1906年春天,对参与者来说,一个意想不到的丑闻是这场日益激烈的对抗的顶峰。这起事件的起因是,在叶卡捷琳堡开设的眼科诊所里,一封寻求帮助寻找合格眼科医生的信中措辞不宽容。叶卡捷琳堡最年长的荣誉博士a·a·米拉夫斯基(A. A. Mislavsky)模棱两可的行为所招致的严厉评价,让该协会的一些成员感到极其痛苦。其结果是,反犹太成分不是一种“不幸的误解”,而是长期对抗的大规模恶化。此外,已经开始的寻求合理妥协的努力因外来干涉而中断,从而导致了新一轮的冲突。结果,联合工会内部发生了大规模的对抗,领导层三次更换,最终在1907年损失惨重。一个合乎逻辑的结果是,回归到非政治主义,将其作为UMS活动的基本原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Nationalist Conflict in the Medical Corporation of Yekaterinburg: A Case Study in the Early Twentieth-Century Crisis
The two-year confrontation in the Ural Medical Society (hereinafter – UMS) in Yekaterinburg in 1905–1907 has not been an object of scholarly analysis previously. This is largely due to the religious aspect, i. e. the withdrawal of all Jewish doctors from the organization. The reconstruction of contradictions in the corporate medical environment of Yekaterinburg relied on the historical-genetic method within the framework of anthropologically oriented history. For information about the participants in the conflict, the author refers to a consolidated database created by him on doctors who served in Perm province. New documents from periodical press and archival funds play an essential role in understanding certain aspects of the confrontation. The article restores a complex of interconnected objective and subjective contradictions in the medical corporation of Yekaterinburg in the early twentieth century, which was aggravated during the revolutionary upheavals of 1905–1907. The determining factor for the beginning of the confrontation in the spring of 1905 was the actual erosion of the basic principle behind the UMS, which was its being apolitical. It was consistently observed starting with the establishment of the organization, which led to a deterioration in relations between its long-standing members. At the heart of acute political and interpersonal disagreements were different ideas of UMS members on national healthcare. They naturally aggravated during revolutionary upheavals and an oversaturation of the doctor “market” in Yekaterinburg. The peak of the growing confrontation was an unexpected scandal for the participants in the spring of 1906. It unfolded because of the intolerant wording in a letter asking for help with finding a qualified ophthalmologist for the eye clinic created in Yekaterinburg. Some of the members of the UMS extremely painfully perceived the harsh assessments of the ambiguous act of A. A. Mislavsky, the oldest honorary doctor of Yekaterinburg. As a result, the anti-Semitic component became not an “unfortunate misunderstanding” but a large-scale exacerbation in the long-term confrontation. In addition, the search for reasonable compromises that had begun was interrupted by external interference, which led to a new round of conflict. As a result, a large-scale confrontation in the UMS, during which its leadership changed three times, ended in considerable losses in 1907. A logical consequence was the return to apoliticism as the basic principle of UMS’s activity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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