지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
DBpia Top 10%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Contemporary societies seem obsessed by remembering. Korea is not an exception. In recent years, Koreans have witnessed the remarkable rise of the historical memory on the fields of politics and popular culture. This essay attempts to examine the relationship between memory and history, and the appropriate role of historians with regard to the collective memory.
Memory and history are assumed by and large to be in opposition, an opposition that was already ancient when it resurfaced in the pioneering studies of collective memory during the last century. For Maurice Halbwachs, a famous French sociologist, memory was socially constructed and present-oriented, an instrument of reconfiguration and not of reclamation or retrieval. Against memory's emphasis on similarity, its appeal to the emotions, and arbitrary selectivity, history would stand for critical distance and documented explanation. In the logic of this opposition the skeptic about the reliability of memory become true believers in the objectivity of history.
But recently, the view on the relationship between memory and history has been changing. This change has much to do with the impact of postmodernism on the study of history. Under the influences of post-structuralist narrative and cultural theories, the 'fictive' and 'inventive' character of historiography is noticed, while the scientific character of history as a discipline has often been contested. Accepting the postmodern view of history - as constituted narrative rather than the report of an objective empiricist undertaking, both memory and history look like heavily constructed narratives, with only institutionally regulated differences.
Then it seems now unadvisable to insist on the sharp opposition between memory and history. Rather what is worth while to emphasize, is their interdependence. But this does not necessarily mean that their relationship is or should be a balanced or stable one. If anything, it is the tension or outright conflict between memory and history that seems necessary and productive.
It is important not to forget that collective memory can be in crucial sense ahistorical, even anti-historical: collective memory simplifies; sees events from a single and committed perspective; denies the "pastness" of its objects and insists on their continuing presence. By contrast, to understand something historically is to be aware of its complexity, to have sufficient detachment to see it from multiple perspectives, and to accept the ambiguities, including moral ambiguities, of protagonists' motives and behaviors. Especially considering the postmodern view of history, it is the historian's task, to perceive memory from a critical viewpoint and to provide insights into its highly selective and instrumental aspects.
Memory and history are assumed by and large to be in opposition, an opposition that was already ancient when it resurfaced in the pioneering studies of collective memory during the last century. For Maurice Halbwachs, a famous French sociologist, memory was socially constructed and present-oriented, an instrument of reconfiguration and not of reclamation or retrieval. Against memory's emphasis on similarity, its appeal to the emotions, and arbitrary selectivity, history would stand for critical distance and documented explanation. In the logic of this opposition the skeptic about the reliability of memory become true believers in the objectivity of history.
But recently, the view on the relationship between memory and history has been changing. This change has much to do with the impact of postmodernism on the study of history. Under the influences of post-structuralist narrative and cultural theories, the 'fictive' and 'inventive' character of historiography is noticed, while the scientific character of history as a discipline has often been contested. Accepting the postmodern view of history - as constituted narrative rather than the report of an objective empiricist undertaking, both memory and history look like heavily constructed narratives, with only institutionally regulated differences.
Then it seems now unadvisable to insist on the sharp opposition between memory and history. Rather what is worth while to emphasize, is their interdependence. But this does not necessarily mean that their relationship is or should be a balanced or stable one. If anything, it is the tension or outright conflict between memory and history that seems necessary and productive.
It is important not to forget that collective memory can be in crucial sense ahistorical, even anti-historical: collective memory simplifies; sees events from a single and committed perspective; denies the "pastness" of its objects and insists on their continuing presence. By contrast, to understand something historically is to be aware of its complexity, to have sufficient detachment to see it from multiple perspectives, and to accept the ambiguities, including moral ambiguities, of protagonists' motives and behaviors. Especially considering the postmodern view of history, it is the historian's task, to perceive memory from a critical viewpoint and to provide insights into its highly selective and instrumental aspects.
목차
Ⅰ. 한국사회의 기억현상
Ⅱ. 기억의 본질
Ⅲ. 역사의 본질
Ⅳ. 역사가와 기억
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
동아시아의 역사 갈등과 한국사회의 집단기억
역사학보
2008 .03
-
집단기억과 역사
역사교육
2003 .03
-
War and Memory in Korean History
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2004 .09
-
기억에 관한 기독교교육적 연구
기독교교육정보
2006 .12
-
로컬 기억과 기억의 정치-폴란드 에드바브네 유대인 학살 기억의 사례-
대구사학
2010 .01
-
Memory of the Day etc.
시조시학
2001 .09
-
Constructed Memory in Chinese Cinema: Narrating Emotion in Red Sorghum and In the Heat of the Sun
외국학연구
2020 .01
-
역사교육의 집단기억 만들기와 개인 사이의 간극 : 인터뷰 분석
역사교육
2018 .03
-
기억과 역사: 새로운 역사ㆍ문화이론의 정립을 위하여
韓國史學史學報
2003 .01
-
기억의 경쟁에서 기억의 연대로? : 홀로코스트와 프랑스 탈식민화 기억의 다방향적 접합
역사비평
2015 .11
-
Breaking the Seal of Memory : A New Perspective on Memory of the Korean War in Korean Novels1 after the Post-Cold War Era
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2006 .06
-
위안부 피해자 영상의 “포스트-기억 세대” 양식으로의 변화와 사회문화적 함의 읽기
인문논총
2018 .01
-
김원일 소설의 ‘기억’과 ‘회상’ 연구
우리문학연구
2013 .06
-
기억과 진실, 그리고 뇌: 인지심리학적 고찰
독일어문학
2009 .01
-
집단기억, 역사의식, 역사교육
역사교육
2009 .03
-
이병주 소설에 나타난 ‘식민지 기억’과 역사 다시 쓰기 : 『관부연락선』과 「변명」을 중심으로
어문론집
2013 .03
-
나치와 홀로코스트에 대한 독일 기억문화의 유형과 미래의 지속 가능한 기억문화
유라시아연구
2020 .01
-
통역사의 기억력 측정
번역학연구
2014 .12
-
일본군 위안부 문제에 관한 역사기록과 문학적 재현의 서술방식 비교 고찰
우리말글
2009 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002850990