-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
-
25
-
26
-
27
-
28
-
29
-
30
-
31
-
32
-
33
-
34
-
35
-
36
-
37
-
38
-
39
-
40
-
41
-
42
-
43
-
44
-
45
-
46
-
47
-
48
-
49
-
50
-
51
-
52
-
53
-
54
-
55
-
56
-
57
-
58
-
59
-
60
-
61
-
62
-
63
-
64
-
65
-
66
-
67
-
68
-
69
-
70
-
71
-
72
-
73
-
74
-
75
-
76
-
77
-
78
-
79
-
80
-
81
-
82
-
83
-
84
-
85
-
86
-
87
-
88
-
89
-
90
-
91
-
92
-
93
-
94
-
95
-
96
-
97
-
98
-
99
-
100
-
101
-
102
-
103
-
104
-
105
-
106
-
107
-
108
-
109
-
110
-
111
-
112
-
113
-
114
-
115
-
116
-
117
-
118
-
119
-
120
-
121
본 자료는 10페이지 의 미리보기를 제공합니다. 이미지를 클릭하여 주세요.

-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
-
25
-
26
-
27
-
28
-
29
-
30
-
31
-
32
-
33
-
34
-
35
-
36
-
37
-
38
-
39
-
40
-
41
-
42
-
43
-
44
-
45
-
46
-
47
-
48
-
49
-
50
-
51
-
52
-
53
-
54
-
55
-
56
-
57
-
58
-
59
-
60
-
61
-
62
-
63
-
64
-
65
-
66
-
67
-
68
-
69
-
70
-
71
-
72
-
73
-
74
-
75
-
76
-
77
-
78
-
79
-
80
-
81
-
82
-
83
-
84
-
85
-
86
-
87
-
88
-
89
-
90
-
91
-
92
-
93
-
94
-
95
-
96
-
97
-
98
-
99
-
100
-
101
-
102
-
103
-
104
-
105
-
106
-
107
-
108
-
109
-
110
-
111
-
112
-
113
-
114
-
115
-
116
-
117
-
118
-
119
-
120
-
121


목차
1. 머리말
2. 차이와 모방: 인도의 민족주의 역사학과 비교(사)
3. 보편화와 차이: 인도의 전통적인 마르크스주의 역사학과 비교(사)
4. 공간적 차이의 시간적 차이화: 일본과 한국의 역사학과 비교(사)
5. 맺음말
2. 차이와 모방: 인도의 민족주의 역사학과 비교(사)
3. 보편화와 차이: 인도의 전통적인 마르크스주의 역사학과 비교(사)
4. 공간적 차이의 시간적 차이화: 일본과 한국의 역사학과 비교(사)
5. 맺음말
본문내용
the west. Marxist interpretation instead explains Indian history with "narrative of mode of production" or with "class narrative". Arguing that both ― Indian and western ― histories follow the same procedure as a universal world history, Marxist historians attempt to resist the colonial rule of the western imperialism. Yet the concept of universal world history (transition from the medieval feudal society to modern capitalist society, for example) presumed by Marxist historians is nothing but ironical. It is, after all, a theory produced by western scholars, and inferred from the procedure of western history. In this sense, comparing Indian history with western history on an equal basis, which could be called a "strategy of universalization", unwittingly reveals the subordinate relationship between the two. In this relationship, Indian history simply serves for a case legitimizing the Marxist interpretation of history produced by the west.
To apply the problematique of Subaltern Studies to Korean history seems very useful and promising. History as a science in Korea was institutionalized during the colonial rule of Japan. It means that history in Korea from the beginning wore the "colonial traces" left by modern Japanese scholars. History in Japan was established as a science through a procedure in which Japanese traditional history-writing was excluded on the one hand, and incorporated and adapted into western history on the other. As a result, western history became a milestone which directed the course of Japanese history. In other words, western history was the "unsaid Other" to indicate the status of Japanese history, and therefore spacial differences between the two were reduced to temporal differences. It was this "strategy of temporalization of space" which dominated the comparison between Japan and the west, and consequently degraded Japanese history into a "derivative discourse" or a subaltern of the west. It is then not surprising that Korean history, established during Japanese colonial rule, is subordinate to western history. When Korean history is dominated by knowledge, discourse or meta-narrative of western historical science, to compare Korean history with western history would be an "asymmetrical comparison". Western history is already and deeply inscribed on Korean history.
It is now evident that an equal comparison between western history and non-western history is essentially impossible: we should then consider the historical conditions that formed this subordinate relationship. We should analyze the procedure in which western historical knowledge and discourse came to dominate non-western history through imperialism. In sum, to compare western history with non-western history is more than simply to explain the similarities and the differences between the two: we need to raise new set of questions to reveal how strong the dominance of one over the other is, or to explain what makes the subordinate relationship inevitable.
To apply the problematique of Subaltern Studies to Korean history seems very useful and promising. History as a science in Korea was institutionalized during the colonial rule of Japan. It means that history in Korea from the beginning wore the "colonial traces" left by modern Japanese scholars. History in Japan was established as a science through a procedure in which Japanese traditional history-writing was excluded on the one hand, and incorporated and adapted into western history on the other. As a result, western history became a milestone which directed the course of Japanese history. In other words, western history was the "unsaid Other" to indicate the status of Japanese history, and therefore spacial differences between the two were reduced to temporal differences. It was this "strategy of temporalization of space" which dominated the comparison between Japan and the west, and consequently degraded Japanese history into a "derivative discourse" or a subaltern of the west. It is then not surprising that Korean history, established during Japanese colonial rule, is subordinate to western history. When Korean history is dominated by knowledge, discourse or meta-narrative of western historical science, to compare Korean history with western history would be an "asymmetrical comparison". Western history is already and deeply inscribed on Korean history.
It is now evident that an equal comparison between western history and non-western history is essentially impossible: we should then consider the historical conditions that formed this subordinate relationship. We should analyze the procedure in which western historical knowledge and discourse came to dominate non-western history through imperialism. In sum, to compare western history with non-western history is more than simply to explain the similarities and the differences between the two: we need to raise new set of questions to reveal how strong the dominance of one over the other is, or to explain what makes the subordinate relationship inevitable.