한국 근대역사학과 서구 역사이론의 전유
Korean Modern History and the Appropriation of Western History Theory
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This research tries to analyse through the three aspects below on how western history theory was introduced during the formation of korean modern history since the end of 19 century and how it was appropriated: this research surveys first on how western history theory was introduced by the historians of western history, and secondly on how the historians of korean history accepted it, and finally on how the historians of korean history since the 1970s read the above korean modern history writings. The introduction of western history theory by the historians of western history was not done until the 1960s, by the reason of late development of western history researches in the korean academic world. And after the 1960s, it was done by the historians of western history who studied in Japan during the colonial period. Under such circumstances, without the help from historians of western history, the historians of korean modern history imported western history theory mainly from China and Japan, therefore it could be said that it is a retranslated history theory. In this process korean historians accepted western history theory selectively, and also did their own appropriation. In this sense it would be wrong to mention the influence of history of western history theory on korean historiography. The historians in the 1970s, who made efforts in overcoming the colonial historiography and in developing the modernity in korean historiography, interpreted the korean modern history writings into three categories, which is the Nationalist History, Positive History, and Social-economic History school. Such readings are our own appropriation of historical theory, but are problematic as well. Positive History School(실증사학) has the characteristic of reading the historical document strictly, but it could be said that such is the duty of every historian, and cannot be categorized independently as a historical school. In the same way, Nationalist History(민족주의사학) could be a tendency of historical writing in every country, and not itself a category of historical school. So we need new efforts to read korean modern historiograpy more deeply and go beyond the presented 3 categories. In this process of improving korean historical identities, we need to notice and make use of the transnational perspective more.
Abstract
This research tries to analyse through the three aspects below on how western history theory was introduced during the formation of korean modern history since the end of 19 century and how it was appropriated: this research surveys first on how western history theory was introduced by the historians of western history, and secondly on how the historians of korean history accepted it, and finally on how the historians of korean history since the 1970s read the above korean modern history writings. The introduction of western history theory by the historians of western history was not done until the 1960s, by the reason of late development of western history researches in the korean academic world. And after the 1960s, it was done by the historians of western history who studied in Japan during the colonial period. Under such circumstances, without the help from historians of western history, the historians of korean modern history imported western history theory mainly from China and Japan, therefore it could be said that it is a retranslated history theory. In this process korean historians accepted western history theory selectively, and also did their own appropriation. In this sense it would be wrong to mention the influence of history of western history theory on korean historiography. The historians in the 1970s, who made efforts in overcoming the colonial historiography and in developing the modernity in korean historiography, interpreted the korean modern history writings into three categories, which is the Nationalist History, Positive History, and Social-economic History school. Such readings are our own appropriation of historical theory, but are problematic as well. Positive History School(실증사학) has the characteristic of reading the historical document strictly, but it could be said that such is the duty of every historian, and cannot be categorized independently as a historical school. In the same way, Nationalist History(민족주의사학) could be a tendency of historical writing in every country, and not itself a category of historical school. So we need new efforts to read korean modern historiograpy more deeply and go beyond the presented 3 categories. In this process of improving korean historical identities, we need to notice and make use of the transnational perspective more.
참고문헌 (46)
- Geoff Eley, "The Future of Class in History" (2007)
- Gunilla Budde, "Transnationale Geschichte. Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien" (2006)
- H. E. 반스, "서양사학사" (1994), 한울아카데미
- J. T. Shotwell, "The History of History(2nd Print)" (1950)
- Jürgen Osterhammel, "Transnationale Gesellschafte: Erweiterung oder Alternative?", Geschcichte und Gesellschaft, 27 (2001)
- Jürgen Osthammel, "Geschichtswissenschaft jenseits des Nationalstaats. Studien zu Beziehungsgeschichte und Zivilisationsvergleich" (2003)
- Michael Werner, "Vergleich, Transfer, Verflechtung. Der Ansatz der Histoire criosee und die Herausforderung des Transnationalen", Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 28 (2002)
- 강만길, "민족사학론의 반성 <민족사학>을 중심으로, In 한국의 역사인식(하)" (1976), 창작과 비평사
- 고지현, "발터 벤야민의 역사주의 비판", 독일연구, 10 (2005)
- 金庠基, "獨逸의 潛水艦戰(세계해전사)", 朝光 (1942)
- 金庠基, "世界大海戰의 回顧", 春秋 (1942)
- 金庠基, "朝鮮戰亂史", 春秋, 8 (1941)
- 金庠基, "世界名將傳", 朝光 (1943)
- 金庠基, "스파르타와 아테네", 춘추 (1944)
- 길현모, "Bookreview: What is History (E. H. carr)", 역사학보, 24 (1964)
- 김기봉, "랑케의‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’본래 의미와 독일 역사주의", 역사와 담론, (39), pp.125~160 (2004), 호서사학회
- 김영한, "실증주의사관, In 사관이란 무엇인가" (1980), 청람
- 김영한, "한국의 서양사 연구 -경향과 평가-", 서양사론, (95), pp.7~49 (2007), 한국서양사학회
- 김영한, "한국의 서양사연구 60년 서양사학회 50년" (2011), 한국학술정보
- 김용섭, "우리나라 근대 역사학의 성립, In 한국의 역사인식(하)" (1976), 창작과 비평사
- 김헌기, "역사주의 이데올로기와 역사학 ― 랑케의 역사담론을 중심으로 ―", 사림, (38), pp.259~287 (2011), 수선사학회
- 도면회, "역사학의 세기. 20세기 한국과 일본의 역사학" (2009), 휴머니스트
- 도미니크 라카프라, "치유의 역사학으로. 라카프라의 정신분석학적 역사학" (2008), 푸른 역사
- 민석홍, "역사이론과 역사서술: 역사의 주관성과 객관성", 역사학보, 31 (1966)
- 박용희, "한국의 서양사 연구와 유럽중심주의 극복", 서양사론, (95), pp.83~111 (2007), 한국서양사학회
- 박찬승, "서평: 60, 80년대 한국사학에 대한 새로운 평가", 역사비평
- 朴贊勝, "韓末 申采浩의 歷史觀과 歷史學-淸末 梁啓超와의 비교를 중심으로", 한국문화, 9 (1988)
- 방기중, "한국근현대사상사연구-1930 40년대 백남운의 학문과 정치경제사상" (1992), 역사비평
- 신주백, "한국 현대역사학의 3分科制度 형성과 역사인식·역사연구방법", 동방학지, (149), pp.131~176 (2010), 국학연구원
- 양병우, "역사이론과 역사서술: 역사연구와 가설", 역사학보, 31 (1966)
- 이기백, "韓國史像의 재구성" (1991), 일조각
- 이능식, "근대사관연구" (1948), 동지사
- 이만열, "한국근대 역사학의 이해. 민족주의 사학과 식민주의사학" (1981), 문학과 지성사
- 이상신, "서양사학사" (1993), 신서원
- 정현백, "트랜스내셔널 히스토리의 가능성과 한계", 역사교육, (108), pp.187~216 (2008), 역사교육연구회
- 조동걸, "한국의 역사가와 역사학(하)" (1994), 창비
- 조동걸, "한국현대사학사" (1998), 나남
- 조지 이거스, "20세기 사학사" (1996), 푸른 역사
- 차하순, "불크할트와 르네상스-그의 문화사관이 내포한 제 문제점", 역사학보, 23 (1964)
- 차하순, "사관이란 무엇인가" (1980), 청람
- 차하순, "서양사학의 수용과 발전" (1988), 나남
- 최갑수, "한국의 서양사학과 근대성의 인식", 서양사론, (95), pp.51~81 (2007), 한국서양사학회
- 크리스티안 엘슬레브, "강좌: 역사연구의 방법론 (1)", 진단학보 (1935)
- 홍영백, "한말 세계사 관계 사서의 내용과 한계, In 소헌 남도영박사 회갑기념사학논총" (1984), 태학사
- "日露海戰史", 朝光 (1942)
- "日淸戰爭史", 朝光 (1942)