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
As a “historical region” the region of East Asia is not a self-evident one. Wherein is the necessity to understand Korean history, which is also a “national history,” as an East Asian history (therefore the history of a region)? In the East Asian region, the modern nation building process has had a close relationship with the modern empire. It is therefore necessary to understand nation building as interacting with the formation of the modern empire, that is, to interpret the interactions between East Asia’s empire history and national history (or the history of one nation-state). Put another way, in order to understand East Asia’s transition to modernity, or “modern East Asian history,” one must first look at empire and the nation-state, and the relationship between the two. Thus it is necessary to understand a historical region through interactions between empire and the nation-state.
This paper seeks to explain “Korean history as East Asian history” by using three pairs of metaphorical concepts. These are “imitation and distinction,” “autonomy and independence,” and “separation and integration.” First, “imitation and distinction” refer to the transition to or replacement by empire in the East Asian region. China’s attempt to analogously copy the Western empire in constructing its own modern empire and Japan’s pursuit of simultaneously learning both the Chinese and Western rules of empire while establishing a new modern empire of its own can be expressed in terms of “imitation” and “distinction.” Second, “autonomy and independence” indicate to what Korea had aspired, or the situation it had found itself in with regard to East Asia’s transition to or replacement by empire. While autonomy symbolizes Korea’s position within the pre-modern Chinese(中華) order, independence represents its position within the modern order of the nation-state. Third, “separation and integration” are metaphors for the “society” of Joseon which functioned separately from the “colonial state” during the colonial era. Rather than an independent entity, the “society in Joseon” was a part of the “society of a transnational region” within the Japanese empire or the East Asian region.
This paper seeks to explain “Korean history as East Asian history” by using three pairs of metaphorical concepts. These are “imitation and distinction,” “autonomy and independence,” and “separation and integration.” First, “imitation and distinction” refer to the transition to or replacement by empire in the East Asian region. China’s attempt to analogously copy the Western empire in constructing its own modern empire and Japan’s pursuit of simultaneously learning both the Chinese and Western rules of empire while establishing a new modern empire of its own can be expressed in terms of “imitation” and “distinction.” Second, “autonomy and independence” indicate to what Korea had aspired, or the situation it had found itself in with regard to East Asia’s transition to or replacement by empire. While autonomy symbolizes Korea’s position within the pre-modern Chinese(中華) order, independence represents its position within the modern order of the nation-state. Third, “separation and integration” are metaphors for the “society” of Joseon which functioned separately from the “colonial state” during the colonial era. Rather than an independent entity, the “society in Joseon” was a part of the “society of a transnational region” within the Japanese empire or the East Asian region.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. ‘모방과 차이’ - 근대 동아시아 제국질서의 구축
Ⅲ. ‘자주와 종속’ - 제국질서와 ‘조선’
Ⅳ. ‘분리와 통합’ - 제국과 ‘식민지 사회’
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
[ABSTRACT]
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
트랜스내셔널 히스토리(Transnational History)의 가능성 : 한국근대사를 중심으로
尹海東
역사학보
2008
.12
동아시아 식민주의의 근대적 성격 : ‘예’로부터 ‘피’로의 이행
윤해동
아시아문화연구
2011
.06
‘식민지 인식의 회색지대’를 위한 변증 : 아래로부터의 근대 연구를 위하여
윤해동
역사와현실
2007
.12
식민지 근대 연구의 새로운 발견적 도구로서 ‘식민지 공공성’ : 윤해동ㆍ황병주 엮음, 『식민지 공공성: 실체와 은유의 거리』(책과함께, 2010)
김백영
경제와사회
2011
.09
일제의 군수동원과 조선인 자본가의 전시협력 : 백낙승(白樂承)의 사례를 중심으로
정안기
동북아역사논총
2014
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-910-003260995