외교사와 국제정치이론 사이의 학제간 연구의 쟁점과 과제: 탈냉전기 미국의 대논쟁에 관한 연구
The Issues and Theoretical Tasks on the Interdisciplinary Study between Diplomatic History and International Relations Theory
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
냉전의 종식 이후 미국 학계에서는 국제정치이론가들과 외교사가들 사이에 본격적인 학제간 연구의 가능성을 모색하기 위한 대논쟁이 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 최근의 논쟁은 국제정치이론과 외교사 사이의 학제간 연구 과정에서 발생할 수 있는 철학적, 방법론적, 이론적, 사실적 문제점들을 광범위하게 포괄하고 있다. 이 글은 최근 미국의 대논쟁이 역사적 지식의 본질과 관련된 인식론적 문제점들을 정면으로 다루고 있다는 점을 지적할 것이다. 최근의 대논쟁은 실증주의적 인식론의 한계를 극복하기 위해 구성주의적 역사인식론이 외교사와 국제정이이론 분야에 동시적으로 수용되어야 한다는 사실을 보여주고 있다. 다음으로 이 글은 자연과학과 역사학의 연구 방법을 구분하기 위해 그동안 제시되어 온 개별사건 기술적 접근법(idiographic approach)와 법칙정립적 접근법(nomothetic approach)이 외교사와 국제정치이론의 차별성을 설명하는 데 뚜렷한 한계점이 있다는 사실을 지적할 것이다. 국제정치이론가들과 달리 외교사가들은 자신들의 이론을 전면에 명백하게 제시하지 않지만 외교사의 서술 역시 이론함축적이라는 점에서 양 분야의 학제적 연구의 필요성은 매우 절실하다. 마지막으로 이 글은 최근 미국의 대논쟁이 한국 국제정치이론과 외교사 사이의 학제적 연구의 발전을 위해 던져주고 있는 시사점들을 분석할 것이다.
Abstract
In the United States after the end of the Cold War the "Great Debate" between diplomatic historians and international relations theorists is under way to grope for the possibility of interdisciplinary studies between the two academic fields. The recent debate involves the philosophical, methodological, theoretical, factual problems which can be raised in the process of interdisciplinary studies. This article will argue that the great debate deals directly with the nature and uses of historical knowledge in relation to epistemology. The recent debate shows that constructive epistemology needs to be incorporated into the studies of diplomatic history and international relations theory to overcome the limits of historical positivism. The distinction has been made between the idiographic and nomotheric approaches to differentiate the methodology of history from that of natural science. This article argues that the distinction cannot be applied to distinguish the method of diplomatic history from that of international relations theory. Diplomatic history is theory-laden despite the fact that historians do not make explicit their theoretical assumptions. This article concludes by providing some theoretical implications for the interdisciplinary study between the two academic fields in Korea.
참고문헌 (35)
- 김용구, "한국외교사연구" (1996), 나남
- 차기벽, "한국정치학에 있어서 역사적 접근의 의의 한국정치학에 있어서의 역사적 접근의 현황과 방향" (1993)
- 홍순호, "한국국제관계사이론:시대상황의 역학구조" (1993), 대왕사
- Biersteker, Thomas J., "The Social Construction of State Sovereignty State Sovereignty as Social Construct" (1996), Cambridge University Press
- Fisher,David Hackett, "Historians' Fallacies:Toward a Logic of Historical Thought" (1970), Harper
- Gaddis, John Lewis, "＂In Defense of Particular Generalization: Rewriting Cold War History, Rethinking International Relations Theory＂ Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, eds. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Politial Scientists, and the Study of International Relations." (2001), MIT Press
- Expanding the Data Base, "ent of Security Studies" (1987)
- "New Conceptual Approaches to the Study of American Foreign Relations"
- The Long Peace, "Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System Inquiries into the History of the Cold War" (1987), Oxford University Press
- "History, Theory, and Command Ground", 22(1) (1997)
- Haber, Stephen H.,, "Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations", 22(1) (1997)
- Iggers,Georg G, "New Directions in European Historiography" (1984), Wesleyan University Press
- Jervis, Robert., "＂International History and International Politics: Why Are They Studies Differently?＂ Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, eds. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Politial Scientists, and the Study of International Relations." (2001), MIT Press
- Kratochwil, "A State of the Art on an Art of the State" (1986)
- Leffler, Melvyn., "New Approaches, Old Interpretations, and Prospective Reconfigurations", 19(2) (1995)
- Levy, Jack S., "＂Explaining Events and Developing Theories: History, Political Science, and the Analysis of International Relations＂ Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, eds. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Politial Scientists, and the Study of International Relations." (2001), MITPress
- Lustick, Ian S., "＂History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias＂", 90(3) (1996)
- Martin, "Objectivity and Meaning in Historical Studies" (1993)
- May, "The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy" (1973), Oxford University Press
- Hans J, "Politics Among Nations" (1985)
- Nye,Joseph, "Understanding International Conflicts" (1993), Harper
- Michael, "The Activity of Being an Historian Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays" (1991), Liberty Press
- Donald J, "Woe to the Orphans of the Scientific Revolution Journal of International Affairs 44"
- Ranke, "On the Character of Historical Science Iggers and Konrad von Moltke The Theory and Practice of History" (1973), Bobbs-Merrill
- Ritter, "Dictionary of Concepts in History" (1986), Greenwood Press
- Schroeder, Paul W, "History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit", 22(1) (1997)
- Shapiro, "The Difference that Realism Makes Social Science and the Politics of Consent" (1992)
- Smith, Thomas W, "History and International Relations" (1999), Routledge
- Snyder, "Myths of Empire" (1991), Cornell University Press
- Stone, "The Revival of Narrative Reflections on a New Old History" (1979)
- Waltz, "Theory of International Politics" (1979)
- Wendt, "The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory" (1987)
- "Constructing International Politics", 20(1) (1995)
- _, "Social Theory of International Politics." (1999), Cambridge University Press
- Wohlforth, William C., "＂Postcript: Historical Science and Cold War Scholarship＂ Colin Elman and Miriam Elman, eds. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Politial Scientists, and the Study of International Relations." (2001), MIT Press