Leimgruber W
Gesnerus. 2001;58(1-2):123-42.
Psychiatrists undertaking historical research, poets praising advances in the natural sciences, sociologists speaking the language of medicine and biology: these are only some examples of how various approaches started to flow together around 1900. This convergence was attributable on the one hand to a fear of social disintegration and the consequences of modernization, and on the other hand to a widespread belief in scientific progress. The nineteenth century concept of individual integrity and a right to cultural education was now replaced by collective approaches emphasizing the role of society as a whole (the "masses") and heredity. During the next few decades eugenic approaches to the treatment of "asocial elements" and minorities predominated. Rather than deriving, as claimed, from scientific principles, these approaches were often based on cultural argumentation. The trend was more toward a culturalization of the scientific and medical discourse than toward a biologization of thinking with regard to society. A good many areas in this connection have hardly been researched yet. Interdisciplinary studies would be required to elucidate the relationships between medically defined "health" and socially defined "normality", the intertwinement of disciplines, and the implementation of scientific concepts into social and political models.
从事历史研究的精神病学家、赞美自然科学进步的诗人、使用医学和生物学语言的社会学家:这些只是大约在1900年各种方法开始融合的一些例子。这种融合一方面归因于对社会解体和现代化后果的恐惧,另一方面归因于对科学进步的广泛信仰。19世纪的个人完整性概念和文化教育权利现在被强调整个社会(“大众”)和遗传作用的集体方法所取代。在接下来的几十年里,优生学方法在对待“反社会分子”和少数群体方面占主导地位。这些方法并非如所声称的那样源自科学原则,而是常常基于文化论证。这种趋势更多地是朝着科学和医学话语的文化化,而不是朝着关于社会的思维的生物学化发展。在这方面,许多领域几乎尚未得到研究。需要进行跨学科研究,以阐明医学定义的“健康”与社会定义的“正常”之间的关系、学科的交织以及科学概念在社会和政治模式中的实施情况。