Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: States Controlling Disease, Disease Forming States -- Chapter 1. The Birth of Public Health in Britain and the Resistance to Disease Control in the United States (1793-1853) -- Chapter 2. Sanitation and Social Welfare in Britain, Germs and Quarantines in the United States (1854-1900) -- Chapter 3. The Control of Disease in the Twentieth Century and the Response to the 1918 Influenza Pandemic (1900 to the 1950s) -- Chapter 4. The Past Manifested in the Present -- Conclusion -- Notes -- References -- Index -- Back Cover.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Goffman's dramaturgical approach is frequently used to introduce undergraduate students to the sociological understanding of human interaction. While a number of scholars have designed engaging student activities that highlight Goffman's approach, most of these activities tend to involve atypical embarrassing interactions or norm-breaking behaviors that happen in front of a large public audience. In this way, they are unlike the mundane face-to-face interactions that were the focus of much of Goffman's work. I have used Goffman's notion of interactions as an "information game," discussed at the start of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, to create a stimulating in-class exercise that involves students having a routine one-on-one interaction with another student. Responses from 170 students in four Introduction to Sociology classes suggest that students found the activity engaging and believed it gave them a richer understanding of Goffman's approach to human interaction.
AbstractWhen Britain and the United States began to respond to outbreaks of disease in the 19th century they developed two distinct systems of disease control. While not polar opposites, Britain focused primarily on sanitation, whereas the United States adopted policies of quarantine. Utilizing the approach of path dependency I argue that this divergence can be partly explained by the timing of disease control formation in each country. As Britain formed its system of disease control earlier, during the 1840s, it was influenced by a miasmatic understanding of disease (the belief that disease is caused by noxious gases that emanate from filthy environments), while as the United States formed its disease control system later, around the end of the 1870s, it was more influenced by new ideas about contagion and the rise of germ theory. Once formed, the public health system of each country began to travel down divergent historical paths; Britain came to connect disease control to the social problems of the working classes (e.g. poverty, working conditions, overcrowding) while the United States developed a militaristic approach that, at times, used quite coercive measures to isolate the contagious bodies of the sick. The origins of public health formation in each country helped shape the overall development of disease control in Britain and the United States over the long‐term.
In the "metaphysical squabbles" that Bertrand de Jouvenel has said characterize much of American political science, none has been more bitter and perplexing than the controversy surrounding the work of Leo Strauss. To the extent that one can speak of a revival of classical political philosophy in this country, the credit for it assuredly belongs to the influence of Strauss's profound scholarship. Nonetheless there is common agreement among fairminded reviewers of Strauss's writings that a "calculated obscurity" hides his message. "He does not wish to tell us, in bold propositional terms, what is on his mind," says Robert McShea. Granted that "Strauss indulges in the … game of esoteric silences," that his real views are often "camouflaged," we must see these devices for what Lee McDonald suggests they are: devices to persuade the reader to "a special way of reading the 'classics'"; they are not primarily concerned with "specific details of interpretation."
