{"title":"有害的不平等。","authors":"D. Rosner","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T he close relationship between a nation’s physical health and its economic and political health has been a central tenet of statecraft since the rise of the mercantile economy in the 18th century. Especially in England, France, Germany, and Austria during this time, health statistics became an important measure of social cohesion. In the 19th century, politicians, doctors, social reformers, and revolutionary thinkers—from William Farr and Otto von Bismarck to Rudolf Virchow, Edwin Chadwick, Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels—continued to use the physical health of a nation’s citizens as a broad gauge of its social well-being (for classic examples, see Edwin Chadwick’s 1842 Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain and Friedrich Engels’s 1845 The Condition of the Working Class in England). Indeed, the arguments they made combined with the data they collected were central to the establishment of a social security health insurance. In the 20th century, policymakers looked to poor health statistics as a harbinger of social and political disequilibrium. One notable example was a 1981 article entitled “Health Crisis in the USSR” by the demographer Nick Eberstadt, who made some startling assertions:1 He found that alcoholism, infant mortality, and suicide rates were taking a horrendous toll on Soviet society and concluded that a society plagued by so many markers of poor health was not sustainable. Coming in the midst of the Cold War, even the most hardened spokespeople from both the Right and the Left found it difficult to believe his conclusion that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. In the weeks and months that followed there appeared a flurry of furious responses in the Review’s letters to the editor and other forums, accusing Eberstadt of grossly exaggerating and misinterpreting the data. On the Right, critics reacted vehemently to the suggestion that the Soviet Union was not the powerful adversary that required huge military budgets. On the Left, the idea that socialism, no matter how corrupted,","PeriodicalId":78777,"journal":{"name":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","volume":"23 1","pages":"47-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Injurious Inequalities.\",\"authors\":\"D. Rosner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0009.12179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"T he close relationship between a nation’s physical health and its economic and political health has been a central tenet of statecraft since the rise of the mercantile economy in the 18th century. Especially in England, France, Germany, and Austria during this time, health statistics became an important measure of social cohesion. In the 19th century, politicians, doctors, social reformers, and revolutionary thinkers—from William Farr and Otto von Bismarck to Rudolf Virchow, Edwin Chadwick, Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels—continued to use the physical health of a nation’s citizens as a broad gauge of its social well-being (for classic examples, see Edwin Chadwick’s 1842 Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain and Friedrich Engels’s 1845 The Condition of the Working Class in England). Indeed, the arguments they made combined with the data they collected were central to the establishment of a social security health insurance. In the 20th century, policymakers looked to poor health statistics as a harbinger of social and political disequilibrium. One notable example was a 1981 article entitled “Health Crisis in the USSR” by the demographer Nick Eberstadt, who made some startling assertions:1 He found that alcoholism, infant mortality, and suicide rates were taking a horrendous toll on Soviet society and concluded that a society plagued by so many markers of poor health was not sustainable. Coming in the midst of the Cold War, even the most hardened spokespeople from both the Right and the Left found it difficult to believe his conclusion that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. In the weeks and months that followed there appeared a flurry of furious responses in the Review’s letters to the editor and other forums, accusing Eberstadt of grossly exaggerating and misinterpreting the data. On the Right, critics reacted vehemently to the suggestion that the Soviet Union was not the powerful adversary that required huge military budgets. On the Left, the idea that socialism, no matter how corrupted,\",\"PeriodicalId\":78777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"47-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12179\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
自18世纪商业经济兴起以来,一个国家的身体健康与其经济和政治健康之间的密切关系一直是治国之道的核心原则。特别是在这一时期的英国、法国、德国和奥地利,卫生统计数据成为衡量社会凝聚力的重要指标。在19世纪,政治家、医生、社会改革家和革命思想家——从威廉·法尔、奥托·冯·俾斯麦到鲁道夫·维尔肖、埃德温·查德威克、卡尔·马克思和弗雷德里克·恩格斯——继续将一个国家公民的身体健康作为衡量其社会福祉的广泛标准(经典例子,参见埃德温·查德威克1842年的《英国劳动人口卫生状况报告》和弗里德里希·恩格斯1845年的《英国工人阶级状况》)。事实上,他们提出的论点与他们收集的数据是建立社会保障健康保险的核心。在20世纪,政策制定者将糟糕的卫生统计数据视为社会和政治失衡的先兆。一个著名的例子是1981年人口统计学家尼克·埃伯施塔特(Nick Eberstadt)发表的一篇题为《苏联的健康危机》(Health Crisis in Soviet)的文章,他提出了一些令人吃惊的断言:1他发现酗酒、婴儿死亡率和自杀率对苏联社会造成了可怕的影响,并得出结论,一个被如此多的不良健康指标所困扰的社会是不可持续的。在冷战期间,即使是最强硬的左翼和右翼发言人也很难相信他关于苏联处于崩溃边缘的结论。在接下来的几周和几个月里,《评论》给编辑和其他论坛的信件中出现了一阵愤怒的回应,指责埃伯施塔特严重夸大和误解了数据。在右翼,批评人士强烈反对苏联不是需要巨额军事预算的强大对手的说法。左派认为,无论社会主义有多腐败,
T he close relationship between a nation’s physical health and its economic and political health has been a central tenet of statecraft since the rise of the mercantile economy in the 18th century. Especially in England, France, Germany, and Austria during this time, health statistics became an important measure of social cohesion. In the 19th century, politicians, doctors, social reformers, and revolutionary thinkers—from William Farr and Otto von Bismarck to Rudolf Virchow, Edwin Chadwick, Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels—continued to use the physical health of a nation’s citizens as a broad gauge of its social well-being (for classic examples, see Edwin Chadwick’s 1842 Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain and Friedrich Engels’s 1845 The Condition of the Working Class in England). Indeed, the arguments they made combined with the data they collected were central to the establishment of a social security health insurance. In the 20th century, policymakers looked to poor health statistics as a harbinger of social and political disequilibrium. One notable example was a 1981 article entitled “Health Crisis in the USSR” by the demographer Nick Eberstadt, who made some startling assertions:1 He found that alcoholism, infant mortality, and suicide rates were taking a horrendous toll on Soviet society and concluded that a society plagued by so many markers of poor health was not sustainable. Coming in the midst of the Cold War, even the most hardened spokespeople from both the Right and the Left found it difficult to believe his conclusion that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. In the weeks and months that followed there appeared a flurry of furious responses in the Review’s letters to the editor and other forums, accusing Eberstadt of grossly exaggerating and misinterpreting the data. On the Right, critics reacted vehemently to the suggestion that the Soviet Union was not the powerful adversary that required huge military budgets. On the Left, the idea that socialism, no matter how corrupted,