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
In Anglophone historiography, transnational and comparative perspectives have enriched our understanding of interstate relations, displacing the position of traditional diplomatic history. A comprehensive and authoritative of discussion these trends’ implications for the historiography of East Asia is desirable, but the considerable scholarly output of the last decade far exceeds what can be responsibly addressed in the scope of one essay. This discussion, then, will focus on several key issues relevant to the history and historiography of Korea and its place in early modern East Asia.
It will consider once prevailing historiographical approaches to interstate relations, such as “the tributary system” and “the Chinese World Order,” in light of recent approaches in transnational and comparative history. These approaches, with their emphasis on “connectivity” and “co-construction,” can highlight the roles of material and knowledge exchange, and of cultural, literary, and ritual practices in dynamically shaping relationships between countries and societies that might otherwise appear to be structurally predetermined.
The discussions here suggest also the value of writing Korean history with an eye to potential dialogue with other disciplinary and “area studies” fields. Not only can Korean history draw from paradigms and approaches developed elsewhere, but research in Korean history can also contribute to their development, especially in methodological or theoretical terms. This potential, however, is undercut by a certain paradox. Shared paradigms and scholarly vocabulary are prerequisites to effective exchange, but such dialogue tends to rely on the deployment of Western-language origin terminology and concepts, such as “nation,” “empire” and “sovereignty,” to give a few examples. The task at hand then is to develop paradigms and analytical approaches that make explicit the accompanying risks of using “foreign” terminology and the process of their translation, while fulling exploiting the opportunities of communication they open up. These tasks are at once essential for productive conversations between scholars working in an Anglophone context and Korean language scholarship. Moreover, these conversations will only become more important in a globalizing world where transnational intellectual communities will have increasingly significant roles to play.
It will consider once prevailing historiographical approaches to interstate relations, such as “the tributary system” and “the Chinese World Order,” in light of recent approaches in transnational and comparative history. These approaches, with their emphasis on “connectivity” and “co-construction,” can highlight the roles of material and knowledge exchange, and of cultural, literary, and ritual practices in dynamically shaping relationships between countries and societies that might otherwise appear to be structurally predetermined.
The discussions here suggest also the value of writing Korean history with an eye to potential dialogue with other disciplinary and “area studies” fields. Not only can Korean history draw from paradigms and approaches developed elsewhere, but research in Korean history can also contribute to their development, especially in methodological or theoretical terms. This potential, however, is undercut by a certain paradox. Shared paradigms and scholarly vocabulary are prerequisites to effective exchange, but such dialogue tends to rely on the deployment of Western-language origin terminology and concepts, such as “nation,” “empire” and “sovereignty,” to give a few examples. The task at hand then is to develop paradigms and analytical approaches that make explicit the accompanying risks of using “foreign” terminology and the process of their translation, while fulling exploiting the opportunities of communication they open up. These tasks are at once essential for productive conversations between scholars working in an Anglophone context and Korean language scholarship. Moreover, these conversations will only become more important in a globalizing world where transnational intellectual communities will have increasingly significant roles to play.
목차
머리말
1. 전근대 동아시아 외교사에 어떻게 접근할 것인가? : 패러다임에 대한 논의
2. 초국가적 역사 : 세계사와 지구사를 향하여
3. 패러다임으로서의 ‘Empire’ : 초국가적 역사가 직면하게 될 번역과 용어 문제에 대하여
맺음말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
초국가사(超國家史) 방법론과 동아시아사의 서술
아시아문화연구
2016 .12
-
국사를 넘어선 역사교육
대구사학
2016 .01
-
초국가 도시네트워크로서 동아시아 문화공동체에 관한 연구
아시아문화연구
2019 .12
-
동아시아사 교육의 연구동향 분석 : 근현대사를 중심으로
동북아역사논총
2016 .09
-
‘공공역사’에 기초한 학교 역사교육으로의 변화 가능성 탐색
역사와교육
2021 .11
-
공공역사: 개념, 역사, 전망
독일연구 - 역사·사회·문화
2016 .01
-
역량 중심 역사교육을 통한 역사학습부진 극복 연구
역사와교육
2018 .01
-
동아시아의 현재와 경험에서 한국 역사학･역사교육의 길 찾기
역사와현실
2016 .12
-
국내 통역 연구의 어제와 오늘 그리고 내일 : 연구 패러다임 변화 중심으로
번역학연구
2015 .03
-
2022 역사과 교육과정 선택과목 개발의 쟁점과 논리
역사교육논집
2023 .06
-
한국사와 역사철학
유라시아문화
2020 .08
-
번역사(飜譯史)와 번역사 연구의 개념
T&I REVIEW
2016 .06
-
‘T · K생’의 그늘 :「한국으로부터의 통신」과 트랜스내셔널 공론장
동악어문학
2022 .10
-
On the Recent Cognitive Turn in Anglophone Beckett Studies
새한영어영문학회 학술발표회 논문집
2020 .10
-
역사대중화와 디지털 역사자료 -역사소비의 변곡-
역사민속학
2018 .12
-
역사영화를 매개로 한 역사비평의 가능성 : 역사대중화와 역사의 대중문화화 사이에서 역사연구자의 역할을 고민함
사학연구
2016 .03
-
테크놀로지 패러다임에서의 번역능력 재조명
통번역학연구
2017 .01
-
[총설] 한국사 연구의 신경향과 패러다임 전환을 위한 제언
역사학보
2021 .09
-
Review of “Representing Korean Buddhism: Toward a Transnational Understanding of the Field of Korean Buddhist Studies”
Korea Journal
2021 .09
-
역사교육 내용선정 기준 -‘의미 있는 역사’의 개념 탐색-
역사교육논집
2021 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-911-000645780