Man, City, Water: Health and Environment in the Moskva-Volga River System (1860s to 1941)

人、城市、水：莫斯科-伏尔加河流域的健康与环境（1860 年代至 1941 年）

• 批准号: 498195065
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Lutz Häfner
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Arbeitsbereich Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 资助国家: 德国
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/498195065?language=en
• 关键词: Man; City; Water; Health; Environment

This project addresses the causal nexus of public health, water supply and water pollution in Moscow between the Crimean War and WWII. At the end of the 19th century the Moscow water supply was insufficient to quench the thirst of the growing population and the needs of the expanding industry. Already at that time, projects to change river courses or to supply Moscow with their water were being discussed. However, the treatment of Moscow’s sewage remained inadequate. The Moskva washed away the problems, shifting them to the Oka, which flows into the Volga at Nizhnii Novgorod.The perspective adopted here focuses on discursive references on the one hand and scientific and personal interconnections, interactions and failed transfers on the other. They are dealt with in four fields. The first field examines the infrastructural history of Moscow's water supply and sewage disposal. The second area explores the role of experts, their scientific contacts and public activities in networks, associations, (inter)national congresses and hygiene legislation. In addition, the legislative process must be analysed regarding the differing interests of various stakeholders, of local self-government bodies, the various ministries to industry and its lobbying institutions. Thirdly, it is important to discuss how courts dealt with environmental offences against the background of a disparate legal situation. What strategies did the conflict parties pursue? How did scientific experts influence the lawsuits? How did conflicts impact on the society and the public sphere? Fourthly, the project pays attention to Moscow's water supply and the construction of hydropower plants in the upper reaches of the Volga. Therefore, it analyses ecological aspects and asks to what extent the studies addressed not only the technical feasibility but also the costs of the environmental consequences of anthropogenic modes of action.The study considers questions of environmental, medical, political, social and economic history, the history of technology, knowledge and science. The analytical framework is shaped by the concepts of “risk society” and “cultures of catastrophe”. It prevents any teleological or backwards narratives taking its starting point from environmental catastrophes such as the reactor accident at Chernobyl' in 1986 which are considered characteristic of the late Soviet Union. Rather, the project investigates the extent to which the actions of key actors have already been characterised by aspects of “ecocide” or “catastroika” prior to WWII. This perspective aims to highlight potential (dis)continuities of actions and structural conditions in the long run, as recent research relates terms like “catastroika” only to the environmental conditions of the late Soviet Union. Thus, we could ask if the increasing ecological problems proved to be “accidental”, contingent, as ”unseen” or “latent” side-effects”. Or were they consciously “produced by societies and rulers themselves”?

该项目解决了克里米亚战争和第二次世界大战期间莫斯科的公共卫生、供水和水污染之间的因果关系。 19 世纪末，莫斯科的供水不足以满足不断增长的人口的干渴和人们的需求。当时，改变河道或向莫斯科供水的项目已经在讨论中，但莫斯科河的污水处理仍然不够充分，将这些问题转移到了奥卡河。河流在下诺夫哥罗德流入伏尔加河。这里采用的观点一方面侧重于话语参考，另一方面侧重于科学和个人的相互联系、相互作用和失败的转移。第一个领域考察了基础设施的历史。莫斯科的供水和污水处理问题探讨了专家的作用、他们的科学联系和公共活动在网络、协会、（国际）国家代表大会和卫生立法中的作用。分析了各利益相关者、地方自治机构、各部委、工业界及其游说机构的不同利益。冲突各方的诉求如何？冲突对社会和公共领域有何影响？第四，该项目关注莫斯科的供水和上游水电站的建设。因此，它分析了生态方面，并询问研究在多大程度上不仅解决了技术可行性，而且解决了人为行动模式的环境后果的成本。该研究考虑了环境、医学、政治、社会和经济历史的问题。技术、知识和科学的历史是由“风险社会”和“灾难文化”的概念塑造的，它防止任何以反应堆事故等环境灾难为出发点的目的论或倒退的叙述。在1986 年的《切尔诺贝利》被认为是苏联晚期的特征，相反，该项目调查了二战之前主要参与者的行为在多大程度上已经具有“生态灭绝”或“灾难”的特征。强调从长远来看行动和结构条件的潜在（不）连续性，因为最近的研究仅将“catastroika”之类的术语与苏联晚期的环境条件联系起来。因此，我们可以问日益严重的生态问题是否被证明是。 “偶然的”、偶然的、“看不见的”或“潜在的”副作用”还是有意识地“由社会和统治者自己产生”？