The First All-Russian Hygienic Exhibition: between science and Popularization

Borisova Dar'ya Sergeevna ORCID: 0009-0000-9575-4873 Postgraduate student; Department of Museology and Cultural Heritage; St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture 192289, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Malaya Karpatskaya str., 13, sq. 411 ladydorata@mail.ru

In 1893, the All–Russian Hygienic Exhibition was held - this is the first attempt in the history of our country to popularize medical knowledge through exhibition activities. It was organized on the initiative of the Society for the Protection of Public Health and with the support of the Government of the Russian Empire. The honorary chairman of the exhibition was Grand Duke Pavel Alexandrovich ^{[1, p. 3]}. At the end of the 19th century, the importance of hygiene increased. Urbanization, which was taking place in the Russian Empire at an accelerated pace in the second half of the 19th century, created new threats to the health of residents. Due to unsanitary conditions, St. Petersburg and other cities of the Empire have repeatedly become epicenters of major epidemics. Government circles are aware of the importance of sanitary improvement of territories and educating the people to preserve the health of the Empire's population ^{[2, l. 1 turnover]}. For this reason, the purpose of the exhibition was: "To give the public and doctors an opportunity to get acquainted with scientific and technical improvements in the field of hygiene and sanitation" ^{[3, p. 1]}. This creates the task of developing methods to popularize medical knowledge. The All-Russian Hygienic Exhibition of 1893 is the first attempt to solve this problem through exhibition activities throughout the Russian Empire.

The first All-Russian Hygienic exhibition was considered by researchers in the context of the development of museum business or its importance for the improvement of medical science (M. P. Kuzybaeva ^{[4, pp. 91-94]}, V. V. Ponomareva ^{[5, pp. 113-122]}). Its analysis from the point of view of exhibition technologies has not yet been undertaken. For this reason, the subject of this article is the ways of displaying medical knowledge at the All-Russian Hygienic Exhibition of 1893.

Accordingly, the high designated goal of the opening of the exhibition was preceded by careful preparation. The committee of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition was established, which worked on the development of the program, selection of exhibits, as well as organizational issues. The committee consisted exclusively of representatives of the medical profession ^{[6, p. 6]}. They are mostly doctors of sciences in various fields of hygiene and medicine. Thus, the task of popularizing medical knowledge was transferred to the hands of doctors, recognized professionals in their field.

Nevertheless, despite the importance of the topic being raised and the efforts of the exhibition committee, attendance at the exhibition was low. 73699 people saw it, an average of 515 people per day ^{[1, p. 19]}. During the entire period of its operation, from May 21 to October 10, 1893, the exhibition resembled a desert, through which only the exhibitors, window keepers and organizers moved ^[7]. The correspondent of the Petersburg Leaflet notes that having visited the exhibition many times, he constantly met familiar faces of the organizers, among whom visitors were lost ^[8]. The question arises about the reasons for the low attendance of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition. To what extent it corresponded to the objectives of popularizing hygienic knowledge among the population.

It is important that there are two polar points of view in the evaluation of the exhibition from the medical community and the public without medical education. The former characterize it as extremely useful and informative ^{[9, pp. 778-779]}, for the latter it is "far from interesting, despite the mass of interesting exhibits" ^[10]. All this makes us think about the special perception of the material by doctors and non-doctors. The theory of the French philosopher M. Foucault serves to analyze this phenomenon. It describes the medical knowledge that has been accepted in Europe since the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

It was during this period that clinical medicine was born, which meant a cardinal turn in the system of medical research. The structure of scientific analysis is changing, which has formed a specific "medical" view. Initially, it meant a certain research method, but later it resulted in a special attitude towards the reality of representatives of the medical profession. M. Foucault characterized a special "medical" view that defines the activity of a doctor: prescribes a certain behavior and determines the assessment of external events.

The transition of medical science to clinical thinking meant the abandonment of speculation and the analysis of a specific visible patient's body in a specially designated institution – clinic. The doctor reads the symptoms from it, which are necessary for making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment. Clinical knowledge is formed directly at the bedside of the patient – it is an experienced knowledge that is constantly developing. The same diseases can manifest themselves in different ways in each specific case, the task of a specialist is to read the similar and special. This implies the ultimate materiality of the clinical medical view, the truth cannot be outside the observable. It always has a visible expression and manifests itself in a specific object.

Individualistic manifestations of diseases lead to the fact that medical knowledge is always incomplete. In order to form an all-encompassing picture of a disease, it is necessary to observe it many times. The doctor collects various manifestations and draws conclusions based on them: "Medical knowledge can gain credibility only in proportion to the number of cases in which it will stand the test" ^{[11, p. 129]}. For this reason, the medical view works statistically: it processes many similar cases, then forming a complete picture. It is no coincidence that M. Foucault likens medical analysis to the art of observation: "Truth points to itself in a repetitive form" ^{[11, p. 139]}.

Further, in clinical medicine, there can be no multiplicity of interpretations in determining the diagnosis: "The essence of the disease is fully expressible in its truth" ^{[11, p. 121]}. This implies another feature of medical knowledge – concreteness. A diagnosis is a definite ending, a result over which there can be no other truth. Moreover, the knowledge gained should be expressed as accurately as possible, an accurate correlation is needed between what is visible and speech, between a glance and a word. In parallel with the formation of clinical thinking, a medical language is also being developed, precise, specific, devoid of descriptiveness.

M. Foucault draws a strict distinction between the medical view and the intellectual one. He is unable to see the multitude of meanings behind the phenomenon, "It is a specific sensitive gaze, a gaze passing from body to body, the entire path of which is located in the space of tangible manifestations" ^{[11, p. 151]}. Foucault's arguments prove the specificity of medical science. The researcher showed its differences from other sciences, to which he assigns the collective name "intellectual view". It can be summed up that materiality, statisticality and concreteness determine the "medical view" that defines clinical thinking. With his help, significant progress has been achieved in medicine since the 19th century. However, he formed a separate group of scientists, "doctors," whose methodology and, more broadly, view of the world around him is strictly defined and specific.

M. Foucault wrote his work "The Birth of the Clinic" in 1963, analyzing various medical practices of the past. N. F. Fedorov's article "The Museum, its meaning and purpose" was published in the early twentieth century, in 1913. And although it is not devoted to the analysis of medicine as a phenomenon, it can capture the same characteristics as that of the French philosopher. N. F. Fedorov tries to distinguish natural and artificial human needs. In his opinion, natural medicine includes collecting and studying all the evidence of the past, and artificial medicine, since it is immoral and serves only the interests of the city, and not universal eternal (religious) ideals. Criticizing medicine, N. F. Fedorov describes its features in comparison with other knowledge systems. Firstly, he separates medicine from the natural sciences and notes the formation of a special class of "doctors" ^{[12, pp. 379-493]}. For N. F. Fedorov, medical knowledge is also specific and unlike that accepted in other sciences. At the same time, in his opinion, no science like medicine narrows knowledge so much. She studies individuals, not the whole, recognizes that medicines act differently on everyone, but considers it possible to know their healing properties by the forces of only one class. One can trace in N. F. Fedorov's views the same characteristic of the "medical view" as in M. Foucault's. The "narrowing of knowledge" hides extreme concreteness, and the "study of individuals" hides materiality. Actually, the opposition of the whole and the medical for N. F. Fedorov is the proof of the immorality and artificiality of medicine. And finally, N. F. Fedorov ironically assesses the possibilities of medicine to develop effective treatment for many people with the same diseases, but with different manifestations, that is, he simultaneously highlights and disapproves of its statisticality.

Both M. Foucault and N. F. Fedorov give a similar description of the "medical view". Despite some criticisms of clinical medicine, as long as doctors are within the scope of their professional activities, their specific methodology helps to achieve success in treating patients. It is impossible not to recognize the progress in the field of prevention and treatment of diseases, which began at the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX century. However, is the "medical view" able to effectively popularize the achievements of its science to the public?

Using the example of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition, it is possible to trace how doctors tried to popularize their knowledge to an unprepared audience. In the process of its preparation, as well as in the design, one can catch the "medical view" described by philosophers.

The first All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition was divided into six sections according to scientific classification: biological; section of medical statistics, epidemiology and medical geography; section of public and private hygiene; hygiene of upbringing and education, section climatological and balneological and literary department ^{[6, p. 9]}. The sections were divided into groups. Initially, it was supposed to divide all the exhibits into groups so that you could get a complete picture of the issue of interest. But many departments, wishing to demonstrate their achievements, exhibited their items separately. As a result, information on the same topic had to be searched in different places of the exhibition, which made it difficult to inspect ^[10].

Along with sending the exhibit to the exhibition, the organizers asked the exhibitors to attach a description to each one, which later served as a label for the audience. There were no requirements attached to them, and there was no single artistic standard. In the end, the descriptions were written in a scientific way using specific terms. No one "translated" the medical terms for the public, which caused criticism towards the organizers ^[13]. As a result, the viewer got into a system of exhibits organized according to a scientific system and with scientific explanations. Moreover, the objects presented at the exhibition were very crowded and, despite their large number, did not differ in variety.

During the preparation of the exhibition, the committee discussed exclusively the selection of exhibits in accordance with the created program. The types of items recommended for display at the exhibition from various institutions have been developed. These included: real things, models, photos, drawings, drawings, diagrams, cartograms, scientific works, in-kind productions, collections of both objects and productions related to the issues of the exhibition ^{[2, l. 5]}. Such a list was sent to all potential participants with a request to provide the possible ones available. It was desirable to provide a brief description from a sanitary and hygienic point of view from a specific institution. The information obtained was then compiled into tables and diagrams for a more convenient overview ^{[14, l. 4]}. There were no recommendations for the preparation of exhibits, and there was no selection among the items sent, they were exhibited in full. As a result, there was a long row of objects of the same type that occupied the entire space provided: objects in display cases, tables and diagrams on the walls, tightly fitting to each other.

Institutions did not always have interesting exhibits, but there was enough statistical data (after all, this is a feature of medical activity), so there were a lot of tables and diagrams, plans and drawings. They were hung on the walls close to each other, sometimes even placed on the ceiling ^[15]. As a result, statistics prevailed at the exhibition. Such exhibits required considerable intellectual work for the viewer, careful study and analysis.

For an unprepared visitor, the affiliation of a number of scientific exhibits to hygiene remained unclear. The exhibition did not show the connection of scientific instruments, apparatuses, tables with daily practices. Apart from the scientific classification and the mass of similar exhibits, no explanations were offered to the public. Really important discoveries and advanced knowledge were on display: devices for proper lighting, heating and water purification, methods of combating infectious diseases, methods of disinfection of homes and clothing, methods of analyzing healthy and unhealthy foods, as well as rules of personal hygiene, caring for children of different ages, etc. However, the exhibits were shown without any connection with practical benefits. As a result, for the untrained viewer, these were curiosities obtained in dark scientific laboratories. There was an estrangement between the creators and the audience, which did not arouse the interest of the latter. The scientific nature of the explanations deepened the gap between the creators-doctors and the audience. "It makes an extremely vague impression, and the public looks at the exhibits as curiosities; there can be no question of educational significance, of arousing public interest in the goals and objectives of hygiene," admits a correspondent who visited the exhibition ^[16]. For the audience, the exhibition looked more like a fair created by merchants, rather than an exhibition organized by doctors of sciences.

It is noteworthy that the representatives of the organizing committee recognized the difficulty of perceiving the scientific exhibits presented and relied not on the methods of exhibition display, but on explainers who were supposed to convey to the public the exhibits that were incomprehensible to non-specialists ^{[1, p. 15]}. However, the explainers were not present at the exhibition all the time, they worked only during some hours. In the design of the exhibition, no techniques were developed for interpreting the exhibits.

So, in the design of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition, one can see the features peculiar to the "medical view". Materiality was expressed in the priority of exhibits, among which no selection was carried out, no generalization was carried out. In the presence of exceptionally accurate scientific descriptions, concreteness was evident. No attempt was made to comprehend the presented material, to explain its meaning. The statistic was expressed in the mass of the same type of exhibits, also distributed in different departments, and in general in the abundance of statistical data. The visitor had to analyze them and figure out the best way to hygiene something.

It is noteworthy that the organizers of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition, in the guidebook catalog published under their leadership, introduce two opposing ideas on the issue of evaluating the exhibits presented. On the one hand, they are proud of the scientific classification of materials, which has not been observed at any similar exhibition in Europe. On the other hand, accessibility is highlighted as a feature of the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition, achieved through the selection of objects and explanations created for them ^{[6, p. 3]}. As can be seen from the reaction of the non-medical press, there were no explanations understandable to unprepared visitors at the exhibition. However, leaving this fact out of the brackets, the assessment of the organizing doctors draws attention to itself: they put an equal sign between scientific classification and accessibility to everyone's understanding. An extremely specific medical view that sees the truth in a material (exposed) object and sees nothing more behind this material truth. A well-designed classification, an ideal correlation between what is visible and what is expressed, means the truth to them.

For this reason, doctors assessed the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition as extremely useful and informative. Of course, they wondered about the low attendance at the exhibition and tried to find explanations for the lack of public interest. They generally identified the same features in the design of the exhibition as other visitors: crowding or close placement of exhibits relative to each other, the scattering of materials around the exhibition or the lack of clear boundaries between departments, as well as the presentation of the same topics in different places. However, doctors consider these features to be "shortcomings" that do not affect the overall instructiveness of the exhibition ^{[9, pp. 778-779]}. Most of the articles written by doctors ignore the disadvantages of the exhibition altogether, they highlight the topic they need, search for exhibits and analyze them^[1].

Doctors have left a significant number of articles and reviews about the All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition. Despite the variety of topics raised, it is possible to find a similar structure in the description. The description of the exhibition begins with a description of the sanitary condition of a particular area of hygiene, the disadvantages are highlighted, then a detailed analysis of the exhibits takes place in terms of their usefulness: method of application, effectiveness. The analysis ends with recommendations for improving the sanitary condition. Doctors, as a rule, analyzed in great detail the materials presented in numerous tables and diagrams ^{[17, pp. 872-873]}, even those that were most inconveniently located ^{[18, pp. 931-932]}. Representatives of the "medical estate" were able to gather information on a specific topic, using exhibits scattered in different departments and study them. The crowding and scattering of exhibits did not interfere with them, because it resembles their professional activity: searching for the right symptoms on the patient's body among thousands of other signs. However, such thinking and perception of the material is not typical for the majority of the population, therefore it cannot serve the purposes of popularization.

As a result, at the First All–Russian Hygienic Exhibition, the audience found themselves in a huge sick body - a panorama of the sanitary structure of the Russian Empire, in which it was necessary to select symptoms (unsanitary practices) from a multitude of parts (exhibits) and, after analyzing them, develop treatment (individual hygienic measures). The whole exhibition seemed to instruct the visitor to peer, delve into the material object and draw conclusions based on what he saw. As practice has shown, doctors easily navigated a number of exhibits and statistics of the same type, and found useful information for themselves, made recommendations, but for a simple untrained person such a task proved to be impossible.

Noteworthy is the assessment given to representatives of the medical "class", visual and understandable explanations or ways of presenting information at the exhibition. The tables and diagrams created by the Society for the Protection of National Health and the Imperial Medical and Surgical Academy, which are devoted to the amount of protein, fat and carbohydrates needed by a person during the day at different ages and under different conditions, are highly appreciated. The arrangement of cylinders of the same size, containing the corresponding amounts of dry protein, fat and starch, next to the digital data on the tables, is considered illustrative. As a result, according to the author, the differences in the amounts of these substances are more striking and easier to remember ^{[19, pp. 870-872]}. At the same time, the table does not indicate the beneficial properties of these substances, the products in which they are contained. There is no conclusion about proper nutrition or the daily meals for humans. However, this is enough for the author, because the symptom has been found, and then it will turn into a conclusion in the doctor's mind. The form of the table or diagram itself is not analyzed as meeting the objectives of popularization. As practice has shown, visitors usually ignored them.

The doctors also highly appreciated the presentation of the material by Dr. P. L. Malchevsky on the issue of chemical research methods for food products. He not only presented the devices necessary for this, but also the substances at various points for determining proteins, fats and carbohydrates in them, as well as the reagents and titers necessary for this ^{[20, pp. 367-368]}. P. L. Malchevsky arranged them in the order necessary for each study. This was supposed to give the public an idea of the nutritional value of food. However, again, only a scientific study of the issue is visible, without analyzing the perception of an unprepared visitor. Both in the examples given and throughout the exhibition, the audience had to search and analyze a lot, like doctors examining a body. Unfortunately, this task has remained misunderstood, and the goal of popularizing hygienic knowledge has not been achieved.

So, at the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition, there is a conflict between the medical view and popularization. The organizers of the exhibition spoke in their "medical language", designed it in accordance with their vision of the world, which alienated the visitors. This example raises the question of the existence of a medical museum in clinical medicine, which is still the basis of medical knowledge. Both theoretical reasoning and the analysis of practices show the specificity of medicine and its differences from other systems of scientific knowledge. This raises the question of a special study of the medical heritage and the creation of special methods of exhibition design in museums of this type.

^[1] The conclusion was made after analyzing the publications devoted to the First All-Russian Hygiene Exhibition in the newspapers "Russian Medicine", "Doctor", "Paramedic".