If there is one thing that marks modern humanitarianismmore than an everexpanding list of unwieldy acronyms, it is the collection and deployment of numerical data. Can one imagine a UNHCR report that does not include the numbers of persons displaced worldwide? What NGO briefing fails to quantify its impact, from numbers of pupils in schools to the number of water purification systems delivered? In his insightful and wonderfully jargon-free book, Humanitarianism and the Quantification of Human Needs, Joël Glasman delves into the history of what he calls the “bookkeeping of human suffering on a world scale” (2). While the quantification of humanitarianism aligns neatly with the neoliberal quantification of everything, Glasman demonstrates that there are other, different historical roots to consider. He points to the proliferation of statistical studies into poverty in the U.S., Europe, and the colonies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (often intended to help preserve social peace) and the 1901 coining of the term “poverty line,” along with studies of bodily needs (amount and type of food), followed by ideas such as the introduction of “basic human needs” in development thinking in the 1960s. From these and other projects came the ability to (allegedly) define a standard, measure any given population against that standard, and comparepopulations cross-culturally, all while claiming scientific certainty and humanitarian impartiality. From here, Glasman undertakes a series of case studies in which he explores how data and quantifiable international standards are created and employed. Not surprisingly, they are revealed to be an amalgam of assumptions, contradictions, happenstance, budgetary constraints, and turf battles. But what is so valuable is his ability to walk us through, step by step, using archival material and ethnographic observation, the birth of seemingly uncontroversial measurement plans and dry data points. There are several that I foundparticularly valuable. InChapter Two,Glasman traces howNGOs created and championed the measurement of the “mid-upper arm

中文翻译：

---

乔尔·格拉斯曼。人道主义和人类需求的量化：最低限度的人性。英国阿宾登：Routledge，2020 年。xiii + 260 页。图表列表。表列表。箱列表。缩略语表。指数。47.95 美元。纸。ISBN：978-0367464165。

如果有一件事比不断扩大的笨重首字母缩略词更能标志着现代人道主义，那就是数字数据的收集和部署。你能想象一份不包括全世界流离失所者人数的难民署报告吗？哪个非政府组织的简报未能量化其影响，从在校学生人数到提供的净水系统数量？乔尔·格拉斯曼 (Joël Glasman) 在他富有洞察力且绝妙无行话的书《人道主义和人类需求的量化》中深入探讨了他所谓的“世界范围内人类苦难的簿记”(2) 的历史。虽然人道主义的量化与新自由主义对一切的量化完全一致，但格拉斯曼证明还有其他不同的历史根源需要考虑。他指出，在 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初，美国、欧洲和殖民地的贫困统计研究激增（通常旨在帮助维护社会和平）以及 1901 年创造的“贫困线”一词，以及对身体需求（食物的数量和类型）的研究，其次是 1960 年代在发展思维中引入“基本人类需求”等想法。从这些项目和其他项目中，可以（据称）定义一个标准，根据该标准衡量任何给定的人口，并跨文化比较人口，同时声称科学确定性和人道主义公正性。从这里开始，Glasman 进行了一系列案例研究，探索如何创建和使用数据和可量化的国际标准。不出所料，它们被揭示为假设、矛盾、偶然、预算限制和地盘争夺的混合体。但最有价值的是他能够使用档案材料和人种学观察逐步引导我们完成看似毫无争议的测量计划和枯燥的数据点的诞生。有几个我觉得特别有价值。在第二章中，格拉斯曼追溯了非政府组织如何创建和倡导“中上臂”的测量