storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/cr-resource/forum/c2a144dbd7e7179... · 2019. 1....

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 5

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea:

For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic

History1)

Sangwoo Lim*2)

___________________________________________________________________________Abstract

The modern way of writing history in Korea began with the European expansion into East Asia in the late 19th and in the early 20th century. The Japanese colonial regime from 1910 to 1945 marked a watershed in Korean historiography, both in positive and in negative ways. This article examines how the colonial experience and the subsequent establishment of a modern nation impacted on the historiography in modern Korea, especially on the conception of ‘scientific’ history that derives basically from the conception of modernity which in turn raises more problematic issues in practicing historical science among Korean historians up to the present times. In so doing, it indicates that the basic assumption of historical profession as ‘science’ which have predominated throughout the course of modern Korean historiography becomes more and more challenged in academic discussions in Korea. It also suggests that a post-colonial and post-nationalistic approach is needed for historical studies in contemporary Korea.

Key words historiography in Korea, postcolonial history, nationalistic history, scientific history, positivistic history.__________________________________________________________________________

1) The contents of this article include in part the paper presented first at the international conferences on “Cultural Relationships between Europe and Korea in Modern and Contemporary Age,” held on May 9, 2014 at University of Firenze, Italy.

*Professor Emeritus Department of History, Sogang University, Korea. E-mail: [email protected]

6 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

Introduction

The history of historiography in Korea extends to ancient times. According to a credible literature, ancient Korean kingdoms began to write and compile their own histories probably as early as the 4th century AD.3) Since then every succeeding dynasty had carefully compiled official records and published their own histories. One of the most conspicuous examples among them was the volumes o f “Joseon Dynasty Chronicle” that are designated as UNESCO Memory of the World.

The modern - the problematic word modern means here largely Western or European - way of writing history in Korea began with the European expansion into East Asia in the late 19th and in the early 20th century. The Japanese colonial regime from 1910 to 1945 marked a watershed in Korean historiography, both in positive and in negative ways. In this article, I would like to examine how the colonial experience and the subsequent establishment of a modern nation impacted on the historiography in modern Korea, especially on the conception of ‘scientific’ history that derives basically from the conception of modernity which in turn raises more problematic issues in practicing historical science among Korean historians up to the present times.

Formation of Modern Historiography in Colonial Korea: Nationalist, ‘Positivist’ and Marxist Historiographies

One unique aspect in Korean history since the earliest times until about one hundred years ago was the uninterrupted succeeding of 3) According to Sam Kuk Sa Ki (History of Three Kingdoms) written by Kim Bu Sik in

the 12th century, the ancient Korean kingdoms were compiling their official histories, although they have not been inherited till the present.


dynasties. It was natural then that the traditional way of periodization in historical writings was by kings and dynasties. Accordingly, there could be no such schematic development or evolution in this traditional historiography in Korea.

The traditional standard of the periodization of historical sequence had been marked by dynasty after dynasty. They simply kept recording what had happened in those dynasties. If one adds a word ‘actually’ here, it may sound like what Leopold von Ranke said, “as it actually happened.” Those actual records in turn would be useful or even indispensable for the posterior kings who could consult those recorded exemplars in their ruling of their kingdoms, as if they looked at a mirror of the past.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Japanese colonial invasion into Korea was accompanied by an introduction of modern, namely European, historical science to Korean intellectuals together with other modern knowledge and institutions. The first generation of modern Korean historians were understandably ultra-nationalistic in striving for remaining in independence of their nation. For them new or modern historical writing that would testify ‘scientifically’ the existence of Korean nation was regarded as the most suitable way to preserve their national identity and heritages and to awaken the rest of Korean people who were suffering from colonial suppression. But the nationalist historians were not capable of grasping Korean history from a broader perspective, such as the viewpoints of universal history or comparative history. They were looking only into the microcosm of Korean nation, in search of the historical and cultural heritages that would preserve and enhance the Korean national spirit. As a result, they had only to emphasize the peculiarity of Korean history, viewed against the histories of other nations including aggressive Japan.

It is ironical, then, to see that the imperial Japanese scholars who


studied Korean history as well as taught the first generation of Korean historians had promoted another kind of peculiarity thesis with a different intention. While Koreans were eager to find out the unique, thus self-sustaining, characteristic of Korean history, Japanese imperialistic scholars, although they were claiming their study of history as an objective science, were preoccupied with characterizing Korean history as under-developed and inferior to the advanced histories that follows the universal developmental schema in world history like Japan. Thus, they held the static theory of Korean history which was supposed to be lacking in any evolutionary development, instead denoting only a perpetuation of dynastic successions. Even the geographical existence of Korea as peninsular was asserted by them, with the notion of geographic determinism but without any scientific ground, as producing disadvantageous shortcomings of Korean history.4)

While most of the nationalist historians were conducting their research and writing outsides of imperial academic institutions, there were some other Korean scholars within the official institutions. Many of the first generation of modern historians in Korea studied under the guidance of Japanese historians who were on their part pioneering the modern Japanese historiography within the wall of national institutions, such as imperial universities. Although the ideal of historical science among the Japanese historians was oriented toward a rigid scholarship derived mainly from German historian Leopold von Ranke’s conception of historical science (Wissenschaft), they were subsumed to the imperialistic outlook in its political implications, consciously or unconsciously.

In those years when Western historical science was introduced to Japan who was rapidly transforming into a modern state, the Rankeian

4) Lee Ki-Baik Nation and History ( 역사). Il Jo Gak, 1971, pp. 2-11.


version of historical science was for some reason wrongfully translated as “positivistic” - obviously a misleading term because what they meant by positivist was a Rankeian historical science rather than August Comte’s version of ‘positivistic science.’ They may have been confused between the rigid methodology in historical research promulgated by Ranke and the conception of exact science advocated by Comte known as positivism. Whatever they called it, what they wanted to conduct was historical research over strictly verified evidences as Ranke had taught his followers, so taught Japanese mentors the first Korean disciples.5) As a result, those Korean students were rather proud of their version of ‘scientific’ research, endlessly finding out new facts and fixing them as historical reality without making any effort to synthesize those facts into an overarching schema which genuine positivistic historians might well strive for. In their striving for finding out “what actually happened” in Korean history, those Korean historians might have possessed, in my observation, a strategy for political evasion under the reality of colonial regime without challenging their teacher’s inclination of minimizing the magnitude of Korea’s past.

During the 1930s, on the other hand, emerged a new kind of Korean historians who were also trained in the universities in Japan. Their conceptualization of history was largely based on the Marxist assumption which was quite popular at that time known as ‘academic socialism’ in some Japanese universities. But both under the imperial government in Japan and under the colonial government in Korea, Marxist activism had been severely surpassed because it could create a social awakening in Japan and a nationalistic revolt against Japanese imperial capitalism in Korea. That was why most of those Marxist historians called their studies

5) Lee Ki-Baik History of Korean Historiography ( ). Il Jo Gak, 2011, pp. 191-200.


almost in disguise socio-economic history.6) Yet their assumptions and practice were overwhelmingly influenced by the Marxist historical materialism. They made effort to synthesize those facts found and collected by the positivist historians into an overarching schema of evolutionary history that was assumed by the Marxist theory.

This kind of socio-economic history began as a reaction to the nationalist and to the positivist trends that had already existed in Korean historiography. But it is also noteworthy that those socio-economic historians in Korea denoted ambiguous attitudes in two matters. On the one hand, in opposing the peculiarity thesis that both the nationalist and the positivist historians held, the socio-economic historians formulated ‘scientifically,’ again in their own terms, a universal developmental model applied to Korean history. On the other hand, they were still inclined to a nationalistic attitude in their abhorring the Japanese colonial interference into the autonomous development. What they assumed was that the course of development of Korean history had been on the verge of moving into capitalistic society before the imperial Japan annexed Korea. So, the path of Korean history that was to develop according to the universal law found through ‘scientific’ research over the facts was hindered and altered decisively by the colonial regime.

Second, they maintained a different conception of the science. Against the positivist historians who were also championing the scientific methodology in history, the socio-economic historians were thinking that they were the genuine scientists since they studied history from the perspective of a universal law. Of course, the universal law was derived from the Marxist conception of history. Thus, they were able to make periodization in Korean history, without referring to dynastic successions

6) Baik Nam-Woon Socio-Economic History of Korea ( ). Seoul, 1933.


as the positivist did, as having experienced the well-known developmental steps: from the primitive communist society through the ancient slavery society to the medieval feudal society. Now Korea was about to move into capitalism, namely toward a modern society, but Japanese hindered the course of natural development. A socialist revolution would solve the colonial questions, and at the same time would make Korean history move into the scientifically proven stage, toward a socialist state. It is, then, interesting to observe that both positivist and Marxist historians in earlier phase of modern historiography in Korea were geared commonly on nationalistic fervour as well as scientific devotion whatever the both factions meant by science.

Nation Building and Modernization of Korea: Neo-Nationalism and People’s History

In 1945 Korea was liberated from imperial Japanese regime, but with the advent of the Cold War two governments were established separately in the North and in the South in 1948. Two different governments eventually produced two different historiographies according to their professed ideologies. In the North prevailed the only historiography based on the dialectics of historical materialism. In the South under the name of neo-nationalism remained prospering the positivistic historiography that was handed down from the colonial period.7) While they were sticking to the Rankeian conception of history in their scientific efforts, those neo-nationalistic historians did not hesitate to profess their intention of nationalism.

Although the question of colonialism seemed to be solved

7) Son Jin-Tae, Outlines in National History of Korea ( ). Seoul, 1948.


automatically as the two states became independent, a new question arose. It was the modernization question that has since bothered Korean historians till the present days, especially when the two states waged an war and are competing with each other in terms of economic and historical development. In North Korea things were easier to formulate their own history as having a developmental nature. Their building of allegedly a socialist nation was viewed as the modernization itself. From this perspective making periodization of Korean history was very simple: succeeding a period of ancient slavery kingdoms Korea experienced a long period of feudalism, and the capitalism was introduced forcefully by the Japanese colonialism, and finally the building of a communist society would fulfil the process of modernization.8)

In South Korea things were more complicated. The political and military confrontations with North Korea rendered no opportunity to apply Marxist view in South Korean historiography until recently. Even the publications of history textbooks for secondary schools are still proctored by the National Ministry of Education for the announced purpose of protecting the assumed liberal democracy and enhancing the national solidarity from the threat of communist infiltration. Thus, remain unaltered the nationalist tradition in combination with the positivist tradition in contemporary Korean historiography, both derived from the colonial era.

But the historians in South Korea had to look for a developmental periodization of their past without adopting the Marxist schema. They are usually in the standpoint of advocating the legitimacy of the liberal democracy in South Korea, thus called as conservative right-wing historians by ‘progressive’ opponents. Consequently, they are eager to

8) Chung Doo-Hee One History, Two Historical Studies ( 역사, 두개의 역사학). So Na Moo, 2001.


find out autonomous and indigenous trends and patterns of development within Korean history itself. But their efforts have always been shadowed by the unintended or unaware adoption of European historical path in describing the evolutionary feature of Korean past, particularly on the matter of modernization.

In the 1980s when a vehement resistance against military regime broke out with a general support from Korean people in general, there emerged a new trend of historical scholarship in South Korea. It all began as an opposition to the positivistic tradition in academic terms. But there were strong political implications in this new movement of writing history that is regarded as a most effective avenue to promote democracy against iron fist military dictatorship. A group of younger historians, who were mostly outside of academic chairs in the university, advocated people’s history or populist history.9) It was in principle based largely on a revived version of the Marxist conception of history that took root in Korean historiography as a disguised form of socio-economic history during the colonial period. While they were opposing the military government for the rehabilitation of rights of people, those people’s historians regarded their writing history as a way of political liberation from the half-colonial state monopoly capitalism. In other words, the modern period in Korean history had to be fulfilled with a social revolution.

It is ironical to observe that they are frequently called or calling themselves progressive historians. In reality, they were too radical in their political attitudes to be merely progressive. And they were too retrospective in their nationalistic aspirations to be called progressive once again. They also talked about their genuine science but their preponderance toward schematic development in Korean history always

9) Institute for People’s History of Korea, People’s History of Korea ( ). Pool Bit, 1986.


hindered the balanced insight and the detached objectivity that are essential to historical research and writing. It is, again, even awkward from the standpoint of ‘historical science’ to observe their obsession to maintain nationalistic spirit and scientific devotion at the same time.

It is well known that under the slogan of the modernization of fatherland that was led by military dictators, South Korea witnessed a rapid industrialization since 1960s. Here arose the question of modernization in Korean historiography. Historians had to find out indigenous growth of capitalism in their recent past with a purpose to fit the course of Korean history into the seemingly universal development of modern history, namely the one Europe had experienced. They were eager to prove with positivistic history that the modern era had already begun in the 18th and the 19th century, namely well before Japanese colonialism began. As a result, the so-called ‘sprout of capitalism thesis’ became one of the most heated debates among Korean scholars during last half a century. But it seems that the sprout cannot be found easily and proved convincingly. After all, it is likely that the bud of capitalism never sprouted as they cannot yet find one after a long research of more than fifty futile years.

Similar is the pedantic debate among the so-call rightist and leftist historians regarding the characteristics of proto-capitalistic modernization during the Japanese colonial regime. Some conservative rightist historians emphasized their scientific rigor in facing the ‘facts’ happened actually in the colonial period. Most of the progressive leftist historians, professing their self-ordained obligation for preserving national integrity, became outrageous by the rightist contention that Japanese colonial regime started the process of modernization in Korea. More recently, similar is an antagonistic debate over the role of authoritarian and military governments in the process of industrialization


and modernization. The conservative politicians are attempting to alter the descriptions in the history textbook for the secondary schools that is published under the strict control of the government on the characteristic of those dictators as monumental one in the process of modernization of contemporary Korea. The progressive historians are vehemently opposing to the move, since they still sustain their claim that their method of writing history is the only scientific way possessing objective scholarship.

Nationalistic Appropriation of Modernization Paradigm

Whichever the scientific and political orientation various Korean historians take, they have seldom raised questions about 'Euro-centric historical view. 'Here 'Europe' refers generally to Western Europe and its derived civilization (such as America and Oceania). If so, what is Euro-centric history? In short, 'European history' represents the universal direction of world history development. Here, European history or European civilization is dominated by the Greco-Roman tradition and the Germanic tradition. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Primary advocators for European civilization, including Hegel, Ranke and Marx, Meinecke had the same idea about the universal development of history. Ranke once said, "India and China have a grand chronology, but at best they only have natural history."10) They understood world history as a process of progression of human civilization toward the ultimate completion. Prior to this, almost all European intellectuals who worshiped the tradition of the Enlightenment were immersed in this universal historical progressive guardian, whose universal history was undoubtedly represented by European history.

10) Georg G. Igger The Theory and Practice of History. Indianapolis, 1973, p. 184.


The notion of progress in this world history consists of three basic concepts. Those are nation state, liberty, and civilization. In other words, the general subject of world historical development is the nation state which would realize freedom of its people, and the process of the realization is civilization itself. As an outstanding example of this historical idea, F. Fukuyama declared the fulfilment of freedom as "the end of history.11) On the other hand, the civilization is often expressed as Christianity, which is the religious foundation that formed Europe in spiritual terms. For example, President Bush of the United States was referring to the US military forces in war as "crusades of civilization against the axes of evil" or "fighters for freedom" against Iraq.

It is noteworthy that the Eurocentric worldview formed by Europeans has been voluntarily accepted by the lesser countries all over the world, including East Asia. Those non-European countries, in the course of their so-called 'modernization' process, found their modern models in European history and projected their modernized futures into a history of European progress. Faced with the aggression of Western imperialism, the ideas of the establishment of the nation-state, the realization of the people's liberty and the progress of the civilization are emerging as the tasks of these colonial countries. As a result, the course of development in European history has become a teacher of history as such. At the same time, this notion of Europe-centered worldview and progress influenced historical research and narrative in those developing countries. Historical research and academic institutions, which was newly started in East Asia during the colonial period, embraced European research methodology as immutable academic truth.

The core content of the Eurocentric historical view is the paradigm

11) Francis Fukuyama "The End of History?" The National Interest, Vol.9. Summer, 1989, pp. 3-18.


of modernization. This paradigm emerged in the nineteenth century Prussia, still fall behind in modern conditions and with the mandate of national unification of German people. At this juncture, there emerged a new historical science. The new history was related to the need for precision in criticism of historical data and the specialization of historical research. The need for specialization was the ideal of scientific objectivity that asked historians to restrain moral judgments. In theory, this has created a clear distinction between history and literature and between professional and amateur historians. Until then, the activities of the historian were in violation of all these norms. History has now been freed from metaphysical speculation, and the request of Ranke for history to indulge himself in the profession intuitively revealed the great power of history.

The great power of history ultimately made it possible to organize history into a coherent narrative. However, in this ideology of history, the guarantor of moral judgment was the reality of a nation. In this sense, the new professional history was a highly ideological work that ultimately justified the reality of the nation state. This practice has been applied not only in Germany but also throughout the world. Thus, the scientific history of modernization was closely intertwined with nationalistic aspirations from its inception.12)

Internalization of History as Universal Progress in East Asian Historiography

Among the basic concepts of Western history accepted in Korean historiography, two are particularly problematic, the conceptions of

12) Georg G. Iggers, tr. Sang-Woo Lim and Ki-Bong Kim History of the 20th Century Historiography. Blue History, 1999, pp. 43-56.


'modernization' and 'monolithic progress.' The notion of modernization has been criticized widely in recent years. But the idea of progress since the Enlightenment, the idea that the world history develops according to a uniform law of historical development, has not been fully denied yet. The progress in science and technology and the progress in social organization would certainly testify the universal progress in the civilization of mankind.

This conception of universal progress was widely adopted by the social thinkers in the nineteenth century and the social sciences in the 20th century. In the 1960s, for example, R. Rostow expressed unwavering confidence in the market economy and liberal democracy13) In other words, for the last 200 years the ideals of the Enlightenment have remained unshaken in that history is a process of progressive development. Extreme examples of this kind of thinking were Stalinism, Nazism and Maoism, which can also be included in a category of modernization history. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that the process of modernization in actual history is not that simple. For example, the modernization of Germany was a different imperfect modernization compared to the modernization of Britain and America.

To summarize the belief in monolithic progress, the notion of modernization is so closely linked to the development of capitalism and the process of world domination of capital. It should also be emphasized that the East Asian countries, when they adopted the Western model of historical development, were not forced by the European countries that led the imperial expansions, but rather that they embraced the Western model voluntarily and internalized them in their formation of historical consciousness. In these countries, the nation state and its people are a

13) R. R. Rostow Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge, 1960.


kind of 'alliance of consensus' in their striving for national development and advanced civilization.

The division of historical periods in European historiography which East Asian historians adopted as a model was also a development process of world history composed of a trilogy. The three stages of the ancient, medieval, and modern periods represented the universal development of world history, and East Asian history had to undergo three trilateral stages of European history, ignoring their unique historical developments. Therefore, in the modern historiography in East Asia, the age demarcations and terms in historical science were understood and used entirely within the framework of European history (Renaissance, Geographical Discovery, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic era, etc.). In particular, the modern past of Europe was the modernization process that should be realized in the future history of East Asia.

In short, the conception of universal world history which was internalized by historians in East Asia was represented in the history of Europe, and it encompasses both "history as an event" and "history as a study." Therefore, East Asian historians have long been able to maintain the optimistic perception so that East Asian history studied with the Western historical methodology is consistent with the developmental model of European history following the laws of development of world history. This kind of attitude is an internalization of European universal apostasy itself, and it is also true that such uncritical internalization has spread not only to historical studies but also to other humanities and social sciences such as literature and philosophy.

Since the modern historiography embarked in Korea during the colonial era, three words have always remained problematic; nationalism, science and modernization. And these three words have been altogether agonizing


the historians of various kinds; nationalistic, positivistic, socio-economic and people’s historians. These conceptions are bothering historians especially in their task of the periodization of Korean history. From its outset the modern historiography in Korea had to confront with some adverse influences and had to nurture the pathetic aspirations to respond the adversity--responding the agonies of imperialism, division of the nation, dictatorship and modernization. In so doing, Korean historians have been oscillating between the two extremes in their observation of nation past; peculiarity and universality14)

It seems that this dilemma between the two horns is well expressed in historians’ periodization in their historical writings. Whenever the historians, regardless of the right or the left, want to emphasize the peculiarity of Korean past, they fell easily into the narrow vision of history, sacrificing the science with an intention to rescue national aspirations. Whenever the historians, on the contrary, want to find out the innate developmental elements in Korean history, they forcibly fit Korean history into the assumed universal track of Eurocentric historical development. A third way, namely a dialectic of the two contradictories should be searched for.

Beyond the Eurocentric Historical ‘Science’

The criticism of the Eurocentric view of history was first raised among Western intellectuals with the advent of post-colonialism, post-modernism that began to emerge especially in the late 20th century. The 1960's saw a turning point in the confidence of the Western civilization and in the positive evaluation of the traditions and institutions

14) Lee Ki-Baik Problem of Periodization in Korean History ( 시대구분 문제) in Periodization of Korean History (한국사 시대구분론). Eul Yoo Culture Publish, 1970.


based on scientific rationality in modern Western history. Until the earlier twentieth century, the social sciences research method had been closely related to its positive evaluation of capitalism, Western societies and their political norms. But, beginning in 1960’s, the Civil Rights Movements in the United States, the post-colonial war in Vietnam, the perception of ecological crisis and the emergence of feminism all contributed to a thorough review of established historical assumptions and research methods. The grand narrative structure of modernization theory began to lose confidence. As a result, historians became more interested in cultural aspects in history that could not be understood in terms of quantitative terms. As a result. grand scale histories based on the conception of universal development have been replaced by the micro-history which focuses on the experience of ordinary people's lives.

Some of the exemplary criticisms of the Eurocentrism historical view raised under this historical context are as follows: E. Saids’ “Orientalism” dissected ‘the Orient’ from the Eurocentric appropriation. I. Wallerstein understood the backwardness of the third world with the conception of ‘world system.’ M. Foucault warned of ‘micro hegemonic power’ following A. Gramsci’s contention for the class struggle against ‘cultural hegemony.’ J. Derrida also sought a radical 'deconstruction of the centers.' The criticisms of these Western intellectuals are different from each other's motives and points of view, but one thing can be found in common, which is deeply related to the dissolution of the West-centered view of history.15)

On the other hand, movements to overcome discrimination against race and gender are also linked to the challenges to the European-centered worldview. Feminism, while attempting to overthrow the dominant

15) Edward Said Orientalism. Minneapolis, 1974: Immanuel Wallerstein, World System. London, 1971: Jacques Derrida, Of Gramatology. New York, 1967.


governance over women of white bourgeois men, has come to deny and subvert the history of white men. In addition, the "Blacks" historians in the United States were encouraging the "African American" historical narrative to counter the racial discrimination of whites in the face of European-centered American history. More recently, a history beyond national borders has attracted attention, a trans-national history that goes beyond the boundaries of national states in line with the EU integration process. A good example is the joint history textbooks between Germany and France which were recently published in both countries at the same time.16)

In Asia, attempts are being made to describe history that goes beyond the Eurocentric view of history. ‘Subaltern studies’, which began in India in the 1980s, was interested in the fact that the history of India, which is focused on the mission of the Indian middle class for their nation state, had only imitated the Western model of writing history. These studies revealed that nationalist historians who were willing to resist European hegemonic domination during the colonial era had in fact appropriated nationalism to secure their political and social hegemony among Indian people who were composed of with many social classes including the lowest of the low, ‘subaltern.’ So, they emphasized the need for ‘history from below.’ Ashis Nandy indicated a culture that relies on "myths, legends and epic.17)

The key issues in these criticisms are the notion of the nation state and the idea of rationalization. The process of modernization and modern rationalization is the two-sided relationship of the same coin. Specialization in the discipline of history is specialization as a science, Wissenschaft in German expression. However, there are two very 16) Guillaume Le Quintrec and Peter Geiss, eds., Histoire / Geschichte. Leipzig, 2006. 17) Ashis Nandy "History's Forgotten Doubles" History and Theory 34. 1995, p. 44.


different scientific concepts in German context or Western context. One is the concept of the history of science that originated in the Ranke. It refers to a discipline that studies history as a social and cultural approach rather than a view of history as natural science. Another very different one is Marx's conception of science and his perception of history.

The concept of two sciences has led to two different trends in the study of history in East Asia. In the process of creating a nation state with their nationalist aspirations, Ranke's assumed ‘objective’ scientific and historical view was widely utilized. Another is a model that is contradictory to the idea of national construction, which comes from the Marxist conception of universal science that is to prove the victory of the proletariat regardless of their nationality. This conception of Marxist science was adopted in the interpretation and study of history as a phenomenon that appeared in Japan and Korea and most strongly in Latin America. The modern historical methodology established by Ranke has culminated in the history of the modern nation-state. As a result, the mainstream of history writings has moved away from the quest for universal truth and come to the individual experience of the nation.

Concluding Remarks

Since the modern historiography was embarked in Korea during the colonial era, three words have always remained problematic; nationalism, science and modernization. And these three words have been altogether agonizing the historians of various kinds; nationalistic, positivistic, socio-economic and populist historians. These words are bothering historians especially in their formulation of the modern period in Korean history.

From its outset the modern historiography in Korea had to confront


with some adverse influences and had to nurture the pathetic aspirations to respond those adversities--confronting the agonies of imperialism, division of the nation, dictatorships and rapid industrial modernization. In so doing, Korean historians have been oscillating between the two extremes in their observation of national past: peculiarity and universality. They have also been bothered by the two formidable tasks as historians: establishment of historical profession as a solid form of science as well as searching for the meanings in Korean history, especially around the question of modernization.

It seems that this dilemma between the two horns is well expressed in historians’ conceptualization of modern period in their historical writings. Whenever the historians, regardless of the right or the left, want to emphasize the peculiarity of Korean past, they fell easily into the narrow vision of history, sacrificing the scientific rigorousness in order to rescue national aspirations. Whenever the historians, on the contrary, want to find out the innate developmental elements in Korean history, they forcibly fit Korean history into the assumed universal track of Eurocentric view of historical development. Grandiose national peculiarity and universal scientific development: these two obsessions are to be dissolved in order to expect a historical science as such in Korean historiography of the day.

The term 'world history' used in Korea routinely means 'Buchverbindungsweltgeschichte (bookbinding world history)' in the sense that it comprehensively covers the histories of various countries and regions around the world without offering any structural coherence. This may be because the subject of world history deals with other countries’ history except Korea in the curriculum of secondary school. Knowing and understanding the historical facts of the past has its own value. The problem, however, is how it is possible to reconstruct the entire human


history. Since the establishment of modern history, academic achievements and accumulation of knowledge have increased tremendously, but this does not mean that it is possible to restore the entire past of mankind to a unified form. Ranke vaguely said that if studies on individual subjects were accumulated, he would eventually go on to describe world history, but his disciples have focused only on accumulating concrete facts, betraying the hope of their great teacher.

Moreover, the world history we are accustomed to has not been based on the comprehensive experience of humanity. Our knowledge of world history is composed by the Eurocentrism deriving from the footsteps of European civilization that began in ancient Greece and Rome. Of course, in the current description of world history, ancient civilizations outside of Europe, namely histories of China, India and the Islamic world, are also covered, but this is complementary or peripheral to the central history of Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that Eurocentric world history plays a role in supporting the reality of the present world since the nineteenth century. Western modernity has predominated over the world. Accordingly, today's world history narrative depicts Europe's modern civilization as the highest stage of human development and implies the relative downfall of the history of non-Western societies such as Asia.

On the other hand, another trend in writing world history is to find the historical principle of universality beyond the differences in individual countries and societies. Although the importance of individuality in history was emphasized by Ranke, the quest for universal truth in history cannot be neglected as long as it exists as a discipline. In modern historical science, there is a tendency that pursues universal principles apart from the position of individuality like Ranke. Marx's relic is a representative theory that approaches history through universal laws. Marx found the most important factor in the development of the history of mankind, the


development of material productivity. This Marxian view of history is based on the belief that history goes

on along the universal principles. He argued that the component of the development of material productivity does not apply only to a particular society or country, but to all history of all societies. Thus, his developmental history was based on a universal law that defines world history. Marxist philosophers and revolutionaries were trying to establish the next stage of historical development. However, Marx 's view of history also denotes a great deficiency. Marx looked at history through the historical experience of European society from ancient Greece to modern Europe. He regarded historical experience of Europe as representative of the history of mankind. Accordingly, the historical development outside Europe was underestimated. In the end, Marx's legacy was an European history that did not escape Eurocentrism, but it was never a world history.

In summary, in the process of modernization and specialization of scholarship mentioned above, the West has had a great optimism until recently, and one of its extreme examples was Fukuyama's "The End of History" that expressed great optimism about the history of liberal democracy, market economy and universal civilization. However, since the postmodern era began in the 1960s in the West, formidable resistances to such optimistic progress have already occurred. In East Asia, by the end of the 20th century historians have begun to raise questions about the scientific and rational ideals of the modern world. As the ideals of Western rationalism has begun to be challenged by the so-called postcolonialism and postmodernism, the basic assumption of historical profession as ‘science’ that have predominated throughout the course of modern Korean historiography becomes more and more skeptical in academic discussions as well as the Eurocentric narrative of world history.


<References>

1. Baik Nam-Woon. Socio-Economic History of Korea( ). Seoul, 1933.

2. Chung Doo-Hee. One History, Two Historical Studies (하나의 역사, 두개의 역사학). So Na Moo, 2001.

3. Jacques Derrida. Of Gramatology. New York, 1967.4. Georg G. Iggers, tr. Sang-Woo Lim and Ki-Bong Kim. History of the 20th

Century Historiography. Blue History, 1999.5. Institute for People’s History of Korea. People’s History of Korea (한국민중사).Pool Bit, 1986.6. Kim Bu Sik. History of Three Kingdoms (삼국사기). Seoul, 1973.7. Lee Ki-Baik. Nation and History (민족과 역사). Il Jo Gak, 1971.8. Lee Ki-Baik. History of Korean Historiography (한국사학사론). Il Jo Gak, 2011.9. Lee Ki-Baik. Periodization of Korean History (한국사 시대구분론).Eul Yoo Culture Publish, 1970.10. Ashis Nandy, "History's Forgotten Doubles," History and Theory 34, 1995.11. Guillaume Le Quintrec and Peter Geiss, eds. Histoire / Geschichte. Leipzig, 2006.12. R. R. Rostow. Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge, 1960.13. Edward Said. Orientalism. Minneapolis, 1974. 14. Son Jin-Tae, Outlines in National History of Korea(조선민족사개론). Seoul,

1948.15. Immanuel Wallerstein. World System. London, 1971.

storage.googleapis.comstorage.googleapis.com/cr-resource/forum/c2a144dbd7e7179... · 2019. 1....

Documents