In the last couple of years, historians and sociologists have published a number of studies on the history of humanitarianism. Besides books that deal with the ideological roots of humanitarianism and its periodisation, we also find empirical case studies about various humanitarian actors and their work on the ground. The new book, Humanitarianism and the Quantification of Human Needs, by Joël Glasman is located in this growing field. Glasman, meanwhile, uses an innovative approach by simultaneously applying historical and ethnographical methods. His study deals with the question of how the production and use of big data has influenced the work of humanitarian actors from the 1960s until today. The creation of statistics about human suffering, the author argues, increased consistently over the last decades and today plays a key role in the legitimation of humanitarian aid. But, in spite of increasing global wealth since the Second World War, the definition of the bare minimum has not substantially changed. For that reason, Glasman summarises his central thesis, which is also in the book’s title: the quantification of human suffering on a global scale in fact means “minimal humanity.” The book is therefore an important contribution to understanding how the global humanitarian regime works in history and in the present, and how statistics serve as a crucial tool for categorising and prioritising emergency situations and raising funds.

中文翻译：

---

书评：人道主义和人类需求的量化：最低限度的人性

在过去的几年中，历史学家和社会学家发表了许多有关人道主义历史的研究。除了涉及人道主义主义及其根源的意识形态根源的书籍外，我们还发现了有关各种人道主义行为者及其在实地开展工作的经验案例研究。新书《人道主义和人类需求的量化》由JoëlGlasman撰写，位于这个不断发展的领域。同时，格拉斯曼（Glasman）通过同时应用历史和人种学方法来使用创新方法。他的研究涉及一个问题，即从1960年代至今，大数据的生产和使用如何影响人道主义行为者的工作。作者认为，在过去的几十年中，有关人类苦难的统计数字不断增长，今天在人道主义援助的合法化方面发挥着关键作用。但是，尽管自第二次世界大战以来全球财富在增加，但最低限度的定义并没有实质性改变。出于这个原因，格拉斯曼总结了他的中心论点，该论点也出现在本书的标题中：在全球范围内对人类苦难进行量化实际上意味着“最小的人性。