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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Since the late 20th century, the field of cultural history has achieved a position with universality while leading other fields within the historical discipline and enjoying an un-precedent modernizing mood. However, in spite of these new leading trends of cultural history, the correct defmitions for the concept of 'culture' or 'cultural history' are not established yet. Consequently, within this absence of established definitions, understanding those concepts becomes much harder. In this paper, I am going to examine the definitions on history, culture, and cultural history given by Johan Huizinga, one of the most representative cultural historians in the early 20th century. Through this examination I hope to provide a vision to overcome the aforementioned dilemma in the present field of cultural history.
For Huizinga 'history' is seen as a mental form through which one would understand the world surrounding him on the basis of the culture of the past. And 'culture' for him is a historical subject, which suggests the answers to the Questions from the past. At the same time it is seen as major objects for the people within the same cultural boundary to choose to study when they write their history. Huizinga's understanding on the relationship between these two concepts could be stated as following: history is cultural phenomena and the culture is historical phenomena. In other words, history is the culture of the past, and culture is the history of the present. In defining both concepts, one concept should function as a quintessential device for explaining the other. Consequently, in Huizinga's writing we find that the distinction between the two concepts looks ambiguous in terms of their contents. Because of this tendency, the question whether 'history' and 'culture' are two completely substitutable concepts for Huizinga, seems to be still in debate.
However, on the basis of such outside features, we should not conclude that Huizinga understood history and culture as the same concepts that can substitute each other. Furthermore such an argument would lose any of its explanatory power when we find that Huizinga eventually regarded culture as an upper hand concept, which includes history. Consequently the relationship of 'history' and 'culture' for Huizinga should be understood as following. While they are sharing similar contents, history and culture are in the process of dialectical development while complementing each other in making up for the other's weakness in order to become one perfect concept.
On the other hand, 'cultural history' for Huizinga is not just some simple concept of mathematical combination between culture and history. Huizinga's cultural history is produced to be a synthetic concept in new dimension functioning to observe and respond to an era's historical situation while suggesting a new metaphorical vision as 'the phenomenology of culture' and 'the morphology of life: In this point of view, this very contribution by Huizinga should be reassessed as an opened vision about history, which had already discussed and predicted the possibility of interdisciplinary approaches among the new sciences of culture from the early 20th century.
For Huizinga 'history' is seen as a mental form through which one would understand the world surrounding him on the basis of the culture of the past. And 'culture' for him is a historical subject, which suggests the answers to the Questions from the past. At the same time it is seen as major objects for the people within the same cultural boundary to choose to study when they write their history. Huizinga's understanding on the relationship between these two concepts could be stated as following: history is cultural phenomena and the culture is historical phenomena. In other words, history is the culture of the past, and culture is the history of the present. In defining both concepts, one concept should function as a quintessential device for explaining the other. Consequently, in Huizinga's writing we find that the distinction between the two concepts looks ambiguous in terms of their contents. Because of this tendency, the question whether 'history' and 'culture' are two completely substitutable concepts for Huizinga, seems to be still in debate.
However, on the basis of such outside features, we should not conclude that Huizinga understood history and culture as the same concepts that can substitute each other. Furthermore such an argument would lose any of its explanatory power when we find that Huizinga eventually regarded culture as an upper hand concept, which includes history. Consequently the relationship of 'history' and 'culture' for Huizinga should be understood as following. While they are sharing similar contents, history and culture are in the process of dialectical development while complementing each other in making up for the other's weakness in order to become one perfect concept.
On the other hand, 'cultural history' for Huizinga is not just some simple concept of mathematical combination between culture and history. Huizinga's cultural history is produced to be a synthetic concept in new dimension functioning to observe and respond to an era's historical situation while suggesting a new metaphorical vision as 'the phenomenology of culture' and 'the morphology of life: In this point of view, this very contribution by Huizinga should be reassessed as an opened vision about history, which had already discussed and predicted the possibility of interdisciplinary approaches among the new sciences of culture from the early 20th century.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 호이징하의 ‘역사‘ 개념과 그 문제점
Ⅲ. 호이징하의 ‘문화‘ 개념과 그 특성
Ⅳ. 호이징하에서의 ‘역사‘와 ‘문화;의 혼용?
Ⅴ. 호이징하의 ‘문화사‘ 개념과 방법
Ⅵ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
역사교육 계열화를 위한 고등학교 국사교육 내용구성 방안
역사와 담론
2005 .04
-
전근대 국사의 형성과 그 발전
韓國史學史學報
2008 .01
-
Mapping World History in Korea
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
우리나라 대학의 세계사 교육의 문제와 개선방향
역사교육
2008 .12
-
역사교육의 담론과 학문적 가능성
역사교육
2006 .03
-
歷史의 有用性과 歷史敎育目標
역사교육
2003 .09
-
역사 교육의 ‘문화적 전환’과 고등학교 『한국사』의 내용 구성 검토
한국사연구
2016 .03
-
역사교육에서 내용 선정 및 구성의 개념으로서 성별
역사교육
2007 .06
-
한국사 연구와 역사교육에서 정체성과 역동성, 공동체 정신
역사교육
2016 .06
-
[총설] 한국 서양사학 2009~2010 : 고르며 땅 다지기
역사학보
2011 .09
-
The Case of Korean History
Korea Journal
1970 .11
-
해방 이후 역사 교육과정 개정을 둘러싼 쟁점
역사교육
2006 .03
-
역사교사의 인지적 특성이 역사수업에 미치는 영향
역사교육
2004 .03
-
한국 고대사 연구의 반성과 대안 -실증과 반도의 낡은 인식을 뛰어넘어-
고조선단군학
2004 .12
-
大學 敎養敎育으로서의 歷史敎育의 方向
역사와 담론
1977 .04
-
10학년 〈역사〉 교육과정의 ‘비교’ 내용 구성 방향
역사와 세계
2009 .06
-
최근 중등학교 역사 교육과정 개정에 따른 세계사 과목의 편제와 내용 구성의 변화
역사교육
2011 .12
-
Concept of International Order in the History of Korea
Korea Journal
1978 .07
-
미국, 영국, 일본의 역사교육과정 동향
역사교육
1999 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002857666