일본 ‘마르크스주의 역사학’의 ‘사관(史觀)’과 주체성
The 'Perception of History' and Self-identity of Marxist History Studies in Japan
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the history of historical studies in Japan, ‘positivist historical studies’ and ‘Marxist historical studies’ played an important role in totalizing the historical views. It was an interaction between positivist and Marxist historical studies, which has served a pivotal function in standardizing the periodization in terms of Japan’s theories of the state and historical studies across the pre- and post-war periods. For such reasons, it would be indispensable to analyze the logic behind the interpretations of ancient history among positivist and Marxist historians, in order to take a closer look at Japan’s interpretations about the theories of the state and ancient history and its views on neighboring countries. Descriptions are largely divided into three categories. First, this study dealt with the ‘interpretations of myths’ by Naga Michiyo, Shiratori Kurakichi, Miura Shuko, Kume Kunitake, and Tsuda Sokichi, all of whom were Japan’s positivist historians in the Meiji era, and their perceptions about Japan’s neighboring countries. They were regarded as progressive historians in that they overcame the fictionality of previous studies and explained the formation of an ancient state. Second, this study clarified the logic behind Marxist historians’ views on such pre-war interpretations of ancient history and identified the elements acting on the logic. To this end, the pre-war positivist historians’ views on ancient history were examined and analyzed focusing on Kuroita Katsumi and Shiratori Kurakichi, who were the major pre-war positivist historians, and Sakamoto Taro, who was influenced by Tsuda Sokichi. In addition, Inoue Mitsusada, who was influenced by Sakamoto Taro, and Saheki Arikiyo, who succeeded the thought of Naga Michiyo, were also subject to the analysis. Furthermore, through the theory on distinct characteristics of Japan by Ishimoda Tadashi, Watanabe Yoshimichi, and Toma Seita, who were known as the “A course of study Group” and involved themselves in the theory of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ of Marxist historical studies, i.e., the theory on Asian stagnation and the theory on development stage of ancient history, the birth of the methodology for periodization of ancient, medieval, and modern times was explored. Third, the matter of Marxism acceptance is connected to materialistic and humanistic views of history. Teichi Kawai and Yasuma Takada stood for materialistic and humanistic approaches, respectively. Yet, this follows the logic of Adam Schaff who already interpreted Marxism as a human philosophy in the West and Louis Pierre Althusser who approached Marxism from a standpoint of materialism. The materialistic and humanistic views of history which have repeatedly emerged in Japan are interpreted as the combination of the ambivalence of ‘anthropology and science,’ as perceived by Antonio Gramsci. Historical studies are a way to gain grasp of history by ‘awakening oneself’ and an emphasis is made on the historical studies in the aspect of understanding the current meanings. In other words, the perception of history is related to linking the logic to break away from subordination to the U.S. imperialism in post-war Japan to the reflection of the logic for subordination to justify pre-war Japan’s colonial rule. Further, it was developed to an approach towards postcoloniality in an attempt to reorganize the world-history studies accepted by the West into the discourse on the distinct characteristics within Japan.
Abstract
In the history of historical studies in Japan, ‘positivist historical studies’ and ‘Marxist historical studies’ played an important role in totalizing the historical views. It was an interaction between positivist and Marxist historical studies, which has served a pivotal function in standardizing the periodization in terms of Japan’s theories of the state and historical studies across the pre- and post-war periods. For such reasons, it would be indispensable to analyze the logic behind the interpretations of ancient history among positivist and Marxist historians, in order to take a closer look at Japan’s interpretations about the theories of the state and ancient history and its views on neighboring countries. Descriptions are largely divided into three categories. First, this study dealt with the ‘interpretations of myths’ by Naga Michiyo, Shiratori Kurakichi, Miura Shuko, Kume Kunitake, and Tsuda Sokichi, all of whom were Japan’s positivist historians in the Meiji era, and their perceptions about Japan’s neighboring countries. They were regarded as progressive historians in that they overcame the fictionality of previous studies and explained the formation of an ancient state. Second, this study clarified the logic behind Marxist historians’ views on such pre-war interpretations of ancient history and identified the elements acting on the logic. To this end, the pre-war positivist historians’ views on ancient history were examined and analyzed focusing on Kuroita Katsumi and Shiratori Kurakichi, who were the major pre-war positivist historians, and Sakamoto Taro, who was influenced by Tsuda Sokichi. In addition, Inoue Mitsusada, who was influenced by Sakamoto Taro, and Saheki Arikiyo, who succeeded the thought of Naga Michiyo, were also subject to the analysis. Furthermore, through the theory on distinct characteristics of Japan by Ishimoda Tadashi, Watanabe Yoshimichi, and Toma Seita, who were known as the “A course of study Group” and involved themselves in the theory of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ of Marxist historical studies, i.e., the theory on Asian stagnation and the theory on development stage of ancient history, the birth of the methodology for periodization of ancient, medieval, and modern times was explored. Third, the matter of Marxism acceptance is connected to materialistic and humanistic views of history. Teichi Kawai and Yasuma Takada stood for materialistic and humanistic approaches, respectively. Yet, this follows the logic of Adam Schaff who already interpreted Marxism as a human philosophy in the West and Louis Pierre Althusser who approached Marxism from a standpoint of materialism. The materialistic and humanistic views of history which have repeatedly emerged in Japan are interpreted as the combination of the ambivalence of ‘anthropology and science,’ as perceived by Antonio Gramsci. Historical studies are a way to gain grasp of history by ‘awakening oneself’ and an emphasis is made on the historical studies in the aspect of understanding the current meanings. In other words, the perception of history is related to linking the logic to break away from subordination to the U.S. imperialism in post-war Japan to the reflection of the logic for subordination to justify pre-war Japan’s colonial rule. Further, it was developed to an approach towards postcoloniality in an attempt to reorganize the world-history studies accepted by the West into the discourse on the distinct characteristics within Japan.
참고문헌 (82)
- 김일수, "역사가 金錫亨의 역사학", 역사와경계, (54), pp.31~70 (2005), 부산경남사학회
- 나카쓰카 아키라, "근대일본의 조선 인식", pp.159~196 (2005), 청어람미디어
- 루트비히 포이어바흐, "기독교의 본질", pp.13~28 (2019), 한길사
- 베네데토 크로체, "역사의 이론과 역사", pp.11~ (1987), 삼영사
- 송호정, "북한 역사학계의 거두 김석형과 한국사연구", 역사비평, 38, pp.384~ (1997), 역사비평사
- 위가야, "삼한 · 삼국 분국설의 구상과 파급", 사학연구, (137), pp.89~124 (2020), 한국사학회[DOI]
- 최재석, "일본 고대사연구 비판", pp.148~185 (1990), 一志社
- ベネデット・クローチェ, "歴史叙述の理論及び歴史", pp.2~9 (1952), 岩波書店
- 江橋崇, "指紋制度にみる国家意識の暗部", 季刊三千里, (42) (1985), 季刊三千里社
- 綱島榮一郎, "西洋倫理學史", pp.442~444 (1900), 東京專門學校出版部
- 姜尙中, "在日 の現在と未来の間", 季刊三千里, (42), pp.118~125 (1985), 三千里社
- 犬丸義一, "唯物史観と人間", 季刊三千里, (7), pp.42~49 (1975), 三千里社
- 犬丸義一, "近代史家のみた古代史論争", 季刊三千里, (7), pp.47~ (1976)
- 犬丸義一, "戦後日本マルクス主義史学史論", 長崎総合科学大学紀要, 25(1), pp.114~ (1984), 長崎総合科学大学
- 犬丸義一, "物語日本近代史3", pp.400~402 (1971), 新日本出版社
- 家永三郎, "津田左右吉の思想史的研究", pp.3~599 (1973), 岩波書店
- 高田保馬, "階級及第三史觀", pp.306~341 (1925), 改造社
- 工藤雅樹, "日本人種論", pp.136~137 (1979), 古川弘文館
- 久米邦武, "神道は祭天の古俗", 史学雑誌, (23), pp.33~ (1891), 史学会
- 金達壽, "古代日本と朝鮮語", 季刊三千里, (11), pp.32~ (1977), 三千里社
- 金達壽, "相互理解のための提案", 季刊三千里, (4), pp.22~ (1975), 三千里社
- 磯前順一, "石母田正と戦後マルクス主義史学:アジア的生産様式論争を中心に", pp.49~ (2019), 三元社
- 那珂通世, "朝鮮古史考", 史学雑誌, 5(5), pp.44~45 (1894), 史学会
- 渡部義通, "天皇制の歴史(上)", pp.94~95 (1986), 校倉書房
- 稲村徹元, "真理がわれらを自由にする 文献考", 参考書誌研究, 35, pp.5~ (1989), 国立国会図書館
- 藤間生大, "日本民族の形成", pp.283~ (1951), 岩波書店
- 藤間生大, "現在における思想状況の課題として", 歴史学研究, 361, pp.51~ (1970), 青木書店
- 藤間生大, "渡部義通の学問と人", 歴史学研究, 512, pp.52~56 (1983), 青木書店
- 瀧井一博, "日本におけるシュタイン問題 へのアプローチ", 人文學報, (77), pp.27~62 (1996), 京都大学人文科学研究所
- 李永植, "伽倻諸國と任那日本府", pp.33~ (1993), 吉川弘文館
- 李進煕, "広開土王陵碑の研究", pp.1~222 (1972), 吉川弘文館
- 文部省学生部, "思想問題に関する良書選奨", pp.128~131 (1932), 文部省学生部
- 福本勝清, "アジア的生産様式論争史", 明治大学教養論集, 351, pp.27~67 (2002), 明治大学教養論集刊行会
- 福本勝清, "アジア的生産様式の発見", 明治大学教養論集, 538, pp.117~159 (2019), 明治大学教養論集刊行会
- 本田喜代治, "「アジア的生産様式」再論- 停滞 と 段階 の問題を考慮しながら", 思想, 501, pp.58~71 (1966), 岩波書店
- 森田俊男, "三宅米吉論", 教育学研究, 39(1), pp.2~ (1972), 日本教育学会
- 森清人, "日本紀年の研究", pp.141~ (1956), 詔勅講究所
- 三浦周行, "朝鮮の開国伝説", 歴史と地理, 1(5) (1918), 山川出版社
- 霜多正次, "日本文化の伝統と朝鮮", 季刊三千里, (3), pp.12~15 (1975), 三千里社
- 上田正昭, "古代史学と朝鮮", 世界, 330, pp.247~257 (1973), 岩波書店
- 上田正昭, "古代学とその周辺", pp.238~241 (1991), 人文書院
- 西田勝, "国家の本質について『国家と幻想』", pp.179~185 (1968), 法政大学出版局
- 石母田正, "日本の古代国家", pp.83~ (1971), 岩波書店
- 石母田正, "日本古代国家論 第一部 官僚制と法の問題", pp.1~439 (1973), 岩波書店
- 石母田正, "戦後歴史学の思想", pp.169~ (1977), 法政大学出版局
- 石母田正, "歴史と民族の発見", pp.14~15 (1981), 東京大学出版会
- 石井寛治, "戦後歴史学再考", pp.31~ (2000), 青木書店
- 星野恆, "本邦ノ人種言語ニ付鄙考ヲ述テ世ノ真心愛国者ニ質ス", 史学雑誌, (11), pp.29~ (1890), 史学会
- 小谷汪之, "歴史の方法について", pp.149~158 (1985), 東京大学出版会
- 小牧近江, "『プロレタリア文学手引』第1編", pp.17~37 (1925), 至上社
- 小澤佳憲, "北部九州の弥生時代集落と社会", 国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, 149, pp.166~167 (2009), 国立歴史民俗博物館
- 松沢裕作, "重野安繹と久米邦武― 正史 を夢みた歴史家", pp.31~ (2012), 山川出版社
- 柴田翔, "歴史のなかの言葉", 季刊三千里, (2), pp.19~21 (1975), 三千里社
- 深作安文, "我國體觀念の發達", pp.249~274 (1931), 東洋圖書
- 辻忠夫, "アジア的生産様式論争の現段階", 経済学論叢, 23(5・6), pp.642~660 (1976), 同志社大学経済学会
- 阿部桂司, "ゆがめられた朝鮮史像", 季刊三千里, (10), pp.216~217 (1977), 三千里社
- 塩沢君夫, "アジア的生産様式論", pp.11~36 (1970), 御茶の水書房
- 永原慶三, "20世紀日本の歴史学", pp.96~98 (2003), 吉川弘文館
- 王増芳, "1950年代の日本における 民族 の提起及びそれをめぐる論争", 教養デザイン研究論集, (13), pp.78~ (2018), 明治大学大学院
- 羽仁五郎, "日本における近代思想の前提", pp.10~18 (1949), 岩波書店
- 羽仁五郎, "自伝的戦後史(上)", pp.256~257 (1978), 講談社
- 遠山茂樹, "戦後の歴史学と歴史意識", pp.7~ (1968), 岩波書店
- 原秀三郎, "日本古代国家史研究-大化改新論批判", pp.13~ (1980), 東京大学出版会
- 田中宏, "内なる歴史の証人たち─在日朝鮮人が照射するもの", 季刊三千里, (50), pp.32~ (1987), 三千里社
- 田中聡, "上古 の確定―紀年論争をめぐって", 江戸の思想, 8 (1998), ペリカン社
- 井上光貞, "古代社会", pp.46~48 (1952), 朝倉書店
- 井上光貞, "古代史研究の世界", pp.2~ (1975), 吉川弘文館
- 佐伯有清, "日本古代史研究の過去と現在", 北海道大学人文科学論集, 13, pp.177~190 (1976), 北海道大学教養部人文科学論集編集委員会
- 中野好夫, "ナショナリズムについて", 季刊三千里, (2), pp.22~35 (1975), 三千里社
- 中塚明, "近代日本の朝鮮認識", pp.140~176 (1993), 研文出版
- 芝原拓自, "所有と生産様式の歴史理論", pp.15~70 (1972), 青木書店
- 芝池信幸, "日本古代国家形成史論に関する諸前提", 紀要, (8), pp.32~43 (1995), 滋賀県文化財保護協会
- 直木孝次郎, "日本古代史の研究と学問の自由", 歴史評論, 363, pp.2~16 (1980), 校倉書房
- 津田左右吉, "上代日本の社会及び思想", pp.240~253 (1933), 岩波書店
- 津田左右吉, "『津田左右吉全集』第28巻", pp.365~ (1966), 岩波書店
- 倉西裕子, "日本書紀の真実", pp.27~ (2003), 講談社
- 川合貞一, "マルキシズムの哲学的批判", pp.10~35 (1932), 青年教育普及会
- 村山正雄, "古代の日朝関係について", 朝鮮史研究会論文集, 1, pp.7~42 (1965), 朝鮮史研究会
- 沢田勲, "日本における「アジア的生産様式」論争の展開1", 金沢経済大学論集, 6(1), pp.77~101 (1972), 金沢大学経済学経営学系
- 坂本太郎, "大化の改新の研究", pp.26~29 (1943), 至文堂
- 許萬元, "唯物史観と人間", 季刊三千里, (3), pp.149~ (1975), 三千里社
- 黒板勝美, "国史の研究", pp.298~336 (1908), 文会堂