家庭是“最好的武器”。两次世界大战期间上西里西亚德国医疗保健话语的工具化

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Family History Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1177/03631990231160093
E. Hiemer
{"title":"家庭是“最好的武器”。两次世界大战期间上西里西亚德国医疗保健话语的工具化","authors":"E. Hiemer","doi":"10.1177/03631990231160093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pro-German family and health policies were, at their core, anti-Polish measures that cleared the path for later racially determined politics. The sources demonstrate how these policies were justified and how their character developed from protective to invasive. Therefore, I examine first protective discourses about the fight against venereal diseases, then analyze supportive regulations such as the midwifery policies and the later invasive measures like sterilizations. Although these seem to be different topics, I show that the German “people's family” (Volksfamilie) and its significance for the health of the German “people's body” (Volkskörper) is always implied. Using a close-reading approach that considers newspaper articles, administrative and private files, I show the extent to which national and nationalist beliefs interfered with the everyday life of citizens. The text thus scrutinizes unpublished sources regarding the strategic importance of families in German biopolitics and its interpretation in the conflicted border region of Upper Silesia. In 1921, a plebiscite was held to decide on the division of the region. This intensified conflicts between Germany and Poland, which had just gained independence in 1918. I argue that the unstable position of the new emerged country was instrumentalized in German discourses to underline the image of the disorganized and underdeveloped East.","PeriodicalId":45991,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Family as “Best Weapon.” Instrumentalizing German Health Care Discourses in Upper Silesia During the Interwar Period\",\"authors\":\"E. Hiemer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03631990231160093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Pro-German family and health policies were, at their core, anti-Polish measures that cleared the path for later racially determined politics. The sources demonstrate how these policies were justified and how their character developed from protective to invasive. Therefore, I examine first protective discourses about the fight against venereal diseases, then analyze supportive regulations such as the midwifery policies and the later invasive measures like sterilizations. Although these seem to be different topics, I show that the German “people's family” (Volksfamilie) and its significance for the health of the German “people's body” (Volkskörper) is always implied. Using a close-reading approach that considers newspaper articles, administrative and private files, I show the extent to which national and nationalist beliefs interfered with the everyday life of citizens. The text thus scrutinizes unpublished sources regarding the strategic importance of families in German biopolitics and its interpretation in the conflicted border region of Upper Silesia. In 1921, a plebiscite was held to decide on the division of the region. This intensified conflicts between Germany and Poland, which had just gained independence in 1918. I argue that the unstable position of the new emerged country was instrumentalized in German discourses to underline the image of the disorganized and underdeveloped East.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03631990231160093\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03631990231160093","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亲德家庭和卫生政策的核心是反波兰措施,为后来的种族政治扫清了道路。这些资料证明了这些政策是如何被证明是合理的,以及它们的性质是如何从保护性发展到侵入性的。因此,我首先考察了与性病作斗争的保护性话语,然后分析了支持性法规,如助产政策和后来的侵入性措施,如绝育。虽然这些似乎是不同的主题,但我表明德国“人民的家庭”(Volksfamilie)及其对德国“人民身体”健康的意义(Volkskörper)总是隐含的。通过仔细阅读报纸文章、行政和私人文件,我展示了国家和民族主义信仰对公民日常生活的干扰程度。因此,本文详细审查了关于家庭在德国生命政治中的战略重要性及其在上西里西亚冲突边境地区的解释的未发表的资料。1921年,举行了一次公民投票来决定该地区的划分。这加剧了德国和波兰之间的冲突,后者在1918年刚刚获得独立。我认为,这个新兴国家的不稳定地位在德国话语中被工具化,以强调杂乱无章和不发达的东方形象。
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
The Family as “Best Weapon.” Instrumentalizing German Health Care Discourses in Upper Silesia During the Interwar Period
Pro-German family and health policies were, at their core, anti-Polish measures that cleared the path for later racially determined politics. The sources demonstrate how these policies were justified and how their character developed from protective to invasive. Therefore, I examine first protective discourses about the fight against venereal diseases, then analyze supportive regulations such as the midwifery policies and the later invasive measures like sterilizations. Although these seem to be different topics, I show that the German “people's family” (Volksfamilie) and its significance for the health of the German “people's body” (Volkskörper) is always implied. Using a close-reading approach that considers newspaper articles, administrative and private files, I show the extent to which national and nationalist beliefs interfered with the everyday life of citizens. The text thus scrutinizes unpublished sources regarding the strategic importance of families in German biopolitics and its interpretation in the conflicted border region of Upper Silesia. In 1921, a plebiscite was held to decide on the division of the region. This intensified conflicts between Germany and Poland, which had just gained independence in 1918. I argue that the unstable position of the new emerged country was instrumentalized in German discourses to underline the image of the disorganized and underdeveloped East.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of Family History is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes scholarly research from an international perspective concerning the family as a historical social form, with contributions from the disciplines of history, gender studies, economics, law, political science, policy studies, demography, anthropology, sociology, liberal arts, and the humanities. Themes including gender, sexuality, race, class, and culture are welcome. Its contents, which will be composed of both monographic and interpretative work (including full-length review essays and thematic fora), will reflect the international scope of research on the history of the family.
期刊最新文献
Childhood in the Jewish History of Southern Ukraine in 1919–1920: Family Experience of Violence during the Pogroms Book Review: Small Stories of War: Children, Youth, and Conflict in Canada and Beyond by Lorenzkowski Barbara, Kristine Alexander, and Andrew Burtch “There Is No Place Like a Happy Home”: Information Wanted Notices, the Christian Recorder, and the Search for Missing Family Members in Post-Emancipation America The Exit Option: Agency and Divorce in Late Eighteenth-Century America The End of Love in the Seventeenth Century: Certainty and Uncertainty in Courtship
×
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