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
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In this paper, I reinterpreted the theory of ‘immanent development’ of KAJIMURA Hideki, who was a famous Japanese researcher of modern Korean History, and tried to consider the potentiality of the theory of ‘immanent development’, which used to reduced to a historical view of the theory of ‘colonial exploitation’.
How is it possible to have immanent eyes in Korea for a Japanese historian? And what does it mean? In general, the theory of immanent development has been criticized for its modernist limit of nationalist history with the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of capitalist sprouting. But KAJIMURA’s concept of ‘immanence’ is the relationist. His ‘immanence’ is closely connected the critique to the so-called theory of external pressure. For him, the colony is not the being determinated by external pressure of imperialist countries, but a element as a variable which maintains or transforms the unequal world system. Especially, he tried to understand the relationships in the capitalist world system from the immanence of Korea.
KAJIMURA tried to find ‘the opportunity of the undiscovered’ from modern Korean history, that is the defeated history. ‘The opportunity of the undiscovered’ is neither the sprouting of capitalist modernization nor the ‘noch nicht[not yet]’ which should be revived for future’s history. It is rather the moment that became the ‘nicht mehr[no more]’ by the defeat, so the moment that make be aware of the alterity of the defeated history. KAJIMURA not tried to rescue the defeated history superficially, but tried to find the potentiality of ‘the historical’ which enable to make progress of the history. He gave it the name of ‘the people’.
It is full of significance with relation to the immanence that he had a delicate sense of the untranslatability of ‘the world narrated by Korean’. Through the untranslatability between Korea narrated or supposed by Japanese and Korea narrated or supposed by Korean, he shows that the concept of ‘the immanence’ necessarily connotes the reflective consciousness about the outside.
Although his theory of ‘immanent development’ seems to return to the general theory of historical materialism, KAJIMURA’s ‘parallax view’, which looks at the separate worlds of different subjects at the same time, corresponds to his ‘opportunity of the undiscovered’.
How is it possible to have immanent eyes in Korea for a Japanese historian? And what does it mean? In general, the theory of immanent development has been criticized for its modernist limit of nationalist history with the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of capitalist sprouting. But KAJIMURA’s concept of ‘immanence’ is the relationist. His ‘immanence’ is closely connected the critique to the so-called theory of external pressure. For him, the colony is not the being determinated by external pressure of imperialist countries, but a element as a variable which maintains or transforms the unequal world system. Especially, he tried to understand the relationships in the capitalist world system from the immanence of Korea.
KAJIMURA tried to find ‘the opportunity of the undiscovered’ from modern Korean history, that is the defeated history. ‘The opportunity of the undiscovered’ is neither the sprouting of capitalist modernization nor the ‘noch nicht[not yet]’ which should be revived for future’s history. It is rather the moment that became the ‘nicht mehr[no more]’ by the defeat, so the moment that make be aware of the alterity of the defeated history. KAJIMURA not tried to rescue the defeated history superficially, but tried to find the potentiality of ‘the historical’ which enable to make progress of the history. He gave it the name of ‘the people’.
It is full of significance with relation to the immanence that he had a delicate sense of the untranslatability of ‘the world narrated by Korean’. Through the untranslatability between Korea narrated or supposed by Japanese and Korea narrated or supposed by Korean, he shows that the concept of ‘the immanence’ necessarily connotes the reflective consciousness about the outside.
Although his theory of ‘immanent development’ seems to return to the general theory of historical materialism, KAJIMURA’s ‘parallax view’, which looks at the separate worlds of different subjects at the same time, corresponds to his ‘opportunity of the undiscovered’.
목차
I. 식민지와 근대
Ⅱ. 내재성
Ⅲ. ‘미발의 계기’
Ⅳ. 번역불가능성
Ⅴ. 시차적 관점
참고문헌
참고문헌 (2)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
내재적 발전론의 네트워크, ‘민족적 책임’의 경계 : 가지무라 히데키와 그의 시대, 1955-1989
조관자
아세아연구
2013
.09
강요된 탈주체화의 역사를 넘어서 : 『자이니치의 정신사』/ 윤건차 지음/ 박진우 외 옮김/ 한겨레출판/ 2016
차승기
황해문화
2016
.12
폐허의 사상 : `세계 전쟁`과 식민지 조선, 혹은 `부재 의식`에 대하여
차승기
문학과사회
2014
.05
[미술] 제2기 시차적 관점의 동시성Ⅲ (1993~1998) - 한국 현대미술 연대기 1987~2012
김종길
황해문화
2014
.06
제2기 시차적 관점의 동시성 Ⅱ(1993~1998) : 한국 현대미술 연대기 1987~2012
김종길
황해문화
2014
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-910-001280157