한중 세계사 교과서의 근대 국민국가 서술

Abstract

This article examines how modern nation states are depicted and to what extent reflection on nation states is presented in the high school history textbooks of the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China. The nation-state takes various forms as a historical presence. From a historical point of view, it is necessary to have an attitude of insight into the achievements and the limitations of the nation state, without being caught in the perspective of “nation-state = achievement of the great modernity.” The term “national state” began to be widely used in Korea in the 1980s as a form of discourse of nation-state theory. In the context of using the term “national state,” this means a criticism or a reflection of the modern nationstate. The recognition of nation-state theory was reflected in the Republic of Korea’s 2007 revision of the world history curriculum as a mechanism to reflect modernity. This may be called a considerable change in a situation in which nation and modernity are set as important values. However, in the case of world history textbooks reflecting the curriculum, the processes of forming the nation-states of Europe are described each in a context of its own, but the limit still is weak. On the other hand, in the case of the non-Western world, nations continue to adopt a conventional narrative method. China’s world history textbooks are following not only the way of the capitalist nation-state but also the socialist way of the nationstate. Socialism points out the limits of the capitalist nation-states of Europe. However, since the narrative is produced in the logic of that camp as a whole, the dynamics of various powers within capitalist society cannot be found. This appears in the fact that China’s world history textbook strongly reflects national ideology, as do the national history textbooks. Since the national history textbooks have been given the role of emphasizing the legitimacy and greatness of the government since 1949, there are clear limitations in embedding reflection upon the nation, and the frame of world history is embedded in the logic of a strong camp. In addition, the construction of nation-states in the non-Western world is being abbreviated. Further, the formation of nation-states in East Asia is also not described well. It is necessary to include the perception of the problems regarding the nation-state, and the problems to be solved are to be examined in relation to the description of modern history in world history textbooks. It is necessary to examine closely the trajectory of the nation-state narrative in the current textbooks and to find an alternative.