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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 역사학회 역사학보 歷史學報 第224輯
- 발행연도
- 2014.12
- 수록면
- 85 - 107 (23page)
- DOI
- 10.16912/khr.2014.12.224.85
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article reviews the fatal limitation of the myth of “scientific objectivity” in modern historiography of the West. The European model of “historical science,” from its outset, was geared not to rational and coherent logics of science but to an ungrounded premises of universal laws or a metaphysical conceptualization of the state (or nation).
It examines the two main currents in the “historical sciences” of the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century: positivistic view of historical science and Rankeian model of historische Wissenschaft. It reconsiders how the positivistic view of history was only to declare that the development of modern European nations including France and Great Britain show the universal law of history according to the positivistic conception of science. It also examines how the Rankeian conception of history was based on the nationalistic outlook through and through with its unique premise of historicism.
It concludes that those historical writings of various sorts in the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century would only result in a ‘civil religion’ rather than in ‘science’ as such. All of those histories as civil religion culminated in the worship of the nation affected by the overwhelming mandates of nationalism of the age. It also indicates that historians accepting modern historical science in the East Asia, including half-colonized Korea in the early 20<SUP>th</SUP> century, disregarded the essential implications of ‘science’ in their responding to Western invasion to their new born or struggling nations.
It examines the two main currents in the “historical sciences” of the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century: positivistic view of historical science and Rankeian model of historische Wissenschaft. It reconsiders how the positivistic view of history was only to declare that the development of modern European nations including France and Great Britain show the universal law of history according to the positivistic conception of science. It also examines how the Rankeian conception of history was based on the nationalistic outlook through and through with its unique premise of historicism.
It concludes that those historical writings of various sorts in the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century would only result in a ‘civil religion’ rather than in ‘science’ as such. All of those histories as civil religion culminated in the worship of the nation affected by the overwhelming mandates of nationalism of the age. It also indicates that historians accepting modern historical science in the East Asia, including half-colonized Korea in the early 20<SUP>th</SUP> century, disregarded the essential implications of ‘science’ in their responding to Western invasion to their new born or struggling nations.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 실증주의 역사학의 과학성은 민족주의 역사학으로 귀결되었다
Ⅲ. 랑케사학은 ‘과학적’ 역사학이 아니었다
Ⅳ. 랑케는 ‘실증사학’의 창시자가 아니었다
Ⅴ. 랑케는 국가주의 역사학의 창시자였다
Ⅵ. 맺는말
[참고문헌]
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (21)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-911-000979570