미국 정치사(Political History)의 성장과 의회사(Congressional History)

오영인 고려대학교 역사연구소 2014 사총 Vol.81 No.-

This study is for understanding and introducing congressional history in the development of American political history since the 1980s. Under the milieu of Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the New Left criticized the liberal consensus view of American history. Within the historical discipline, in addition, a social and cultural history revolution took place that pushed scholars to emphasize the history from the bottom up such as class formation, gender relations, and cultural consciousness. Therefore. political history, which focused on not ordinary people but political elites who represented peoples, was loosing it’s place in the realm of American history. However, during the 1980s, a group of political scientists, sociologists and historians brought historical institutionalism back into the study of politics since they shared the fact that politics was profoundly historical. Bringing together the new institutionalism and sociocultural history, since the 1980s, political history has been reemerging as sociocultural political history for revisiting the study of politics. And it was the time when congressional history emerged in American political history. When most social and cultural historians minimized the study of government institutions, policymakers, and policies, Congress was characterized an insulated haven for white male elites who subverted the democratic process in favor of vested interest groups or as an archaic institution that functioned as a roadblock from mass social movements. However, recently, historians and historical social scientists are interested in learning more about this important branch of government. A renewed interest among historians in the modern Congress has emerged form two ways. The first approach is the new historical institutional analysis emphasizing how and in what relations Congress itself had been reformed. The second approach which congressional history has emerged is the debate over how gender and race influenced policy development particularly the Social Security Policy. Unlike social scientists or political scientists, historians provide a more dynamic history of Congress by integrating a history of social conflict and nonelite groups into the analysis of politics and considering categories such as gender and race as well as factors such as symbols, ideology and rhetoric. Given the distrust of Congress in history, a stronger understanding of how the institution related to the people and its condition seems more important ever. 본 논문은 1980년대 이후 미국 정치사의 성장과정에서 특히 의회사의 등장과 그 배경, 그리고 연구경향 등을 연구사적으로 정리하고 소개하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 1960년대 미전역을 휩쓸었던 민권운동의 영향으로 역사학계는 기존의 역사연구방법론에 변화를 경험하게 되었다. 미국의 역사경험에 대한 장밋빛 그림을 그려주었던 전통의 합의사학에 반기를 들고 등장한 신좌파 역사학자들은 미국의 번영 뒤에 가려졌던 일반 대중들과 희생자들을 역사의 주인공으로 회복시키기 시작했다. 이후 1970년대 ‘밑으로부터의 역사’를 강조했던 사회문화사적 역사연구방법론의 등장은 일반 대중의 역사 경험에 깊은 관심을 표명하며 계급, 젠더, 문화, 종교 등 역사연구대상을 크게 넓혀주었다. 이러한 분위기 속에서 소수 정치엘리트 특히 대통령이라는 행정수반에 집중했던 미국의 정치사는 역사학계에서 서서히 그 위치를 잃어가고 있었다. 그런데 1980년대 이후 21세기 전환기에 접어들면서 정치학계는 물론이고 경제학, 사회학 등 사회과학 분야의 연구자들과 역사학자들의 학제적 연구가 활발히 진행되면서 신제도주의 연구방법론이 역사학에 도입되기 시작했고 미국의 정치사는 새로운 부활의 과정을 경험하고 있다. 특히, 역사학계는 일반 대중의 삶에 가장 큰 영향을 미치는 정부의 공공정책에 다시 관심을 기울이기 시작했고, 정책 형성에 있어서 결정적 역할을 담당하는 입법기관인 의회의 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 그 중에서도, 미국의 사회복지정책의 한계와 문제점을 분석하고자 했던 사회문화사가들이 예컨대 젠더와 인종이 정부정책 결정에 있어서 어떤 영향을 서로 주고받았는가에 주목하게 되면서 복지정책의 확대와 축소에 있어서 의회의 역할은 중요한 연구 주제가 되었다. 의회 연구는 크게 두 가지 접근방법으로 분류할 수 있다. 하나는, 다양한 기관들, 즉 여러 정부기관과 사적기관들과의 관계 속에서 의회라는 입법기관 자체의 성격과 그 변화를 설명하는 접근방식이고, 다른 하나는, 정부의 공공정책 속에서 드러나는 의회의 역할을 단순히 정책사(policy history) 연구의 한 주제로 취급하는 것을 넘어 실질적 수혜자들인 일반 대중들과의 역동적 상호관계 속에서 조망하는 접근방식이다. 정부공공정책에서 의회의 역할에 대한 연구 중 특히 본고는 지금까지 많은 성과물을 발표하고 있는 주제인 젠더와 인종연구를 중심으로 논의를 풀어내었다.

미국 정치사(Political History)의 성장과 의회사(Congressional History)

오영인 ( Young In Oh ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2014 사총 Vol.81 No.-

This study is for understanding and introducing congressional history in the development of American political history since the 1980s. Under the milieu of Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the New Left criticized the liberal consensus view of American history. Within the historical discipline, in addition, a social and cultural history revolution took place that pushed scholars to emphasize the history from the bottom up such as class formation, gender relations, and cultural consciousness. Therefore. political history, which focused on not ordinary people but political elites who represented peoples, was loosing it`s place in the realm of American history. However, during the 1980s, a group of political scientists, sociologists and historians brought historical institutionalism back into the study of politics since they shared the fact that politics was profoundly historical. Bringing together the new institutionalism and sociocultural history, since the 1980s, political history has been reemerging as sociocultural political history for revisiting the study of politics. And it was the time when congressional history emerged in American political history. When most social and cultural historians minimized the study of government institutions, policymakers, and policies, Congress was characterized an insulated haven for white male elites who subverted the democratic process in favor of vested interest groups or as an archaic institution that functioned as a roadblock from mass social movements. However, recently, historians and historical social scientists are interested in learning more about this important branch of government. A renewed interest among historians in the modern Congress has emerged form two ways. The first approach is the new historical institutional analysis emphasizing how and in what relations Congress itself had been reformed. The second approach which congressional history has emerged is the debate over how gender and race influenced policy development particularly the Social Security Policy. Unlike social scientists or political scientists, historians provide a more dynamic history of Congress by integrating a history of social conflict and nonelite groups into the analysis of politics and considering categories such as gender and race as well as factors such as symbols, ideology and rhetoric. Given the distrust of Congress in history, a stronger understanding of how the institution related to the people and its condition seems more important ever.

『아아록(我我錄)』의 조선 정치사 서술과 인식 태도

정호훈(Jung Ho-hun) 한국역사연구회 2012 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.85

Examined in this article, is the structure of 『Ah’ah-rok』, which was compiled during the latter half period of the 18th century. Also examined here are certain characteristics of the perspective and stances reflected in it. The things that should be noted from 『Ah’ah-rok』, in terms of its writing and its point of view, can be summarized as follows. First, 『Ah’ah-rok』 was meant to be a documentation of the political history of the Joseon dynasty, with the perspective and opinion of the author (or the supporting party of faction) most clearly presented. A variety of materials were used and consulted, yet the author’s stance is not at all buried under them, and instead it is most vividly presented. This is what is unique about 『Ah’ah-rok』, compared to the other ‘political history’ writings we can find from this period, which usually just presented original materials and reference texts. Second, 『Ah’ah-rok』 was written under the explicit intentions to legitimatize the stance of the “Elder” No’ron/老論 faction of the Westerners party[西人]. It wanted to emphasize the fact that the Nor’on faction’s political position was right from the beginning and throughout the entire history of Joseon. This is an attitude that was actually shared by other records created by factions such as So’ron/少論(Westerners party’s ‘Junior’ Faction) or the Nam’in/南人(Southerners) party, which all compiled political material books in order to portray their own parties as have been on the ‘good side’ of all the conflicts which continued throughout the latter half of the Joseon dynasty. Third, 『Ah’ah-rok』 tried to understand the major events of the Joseon political history as “Political Purges(‘Sa’hwa, 士禍’).” It was an effort to emphasize the importance of ‘Sa/士(the Scholars),’ which was the officials’ own identity, and to examine the world from a viewpoint of a ‘scholar.’ Fourth, 『Ah’ah-rok』 wanted to determine the meaning of “Righteous Obligations(‘Jeol’eui/節義’)” through the political history of Joseon. This was out of a sentiment to define and emphasize this obligation as an ideology that would dominate the Joseon politics internally. 『Ah’ah-rok』 was not a mere material book or a reference compilation, but was a systemic documentation of the Joseon dynasty’s political history from a specific viewpoint and ideology. All the materials compiled inside were specifically selected and interpreted according to such political view. It was a new way to document and compile a party-politics manual, compared to the other publications of the time. We can see that 『Ah’ah-rok』 was not only a Party Position Manual(Dang’ron-seo/黨論書), but also a historical writing of the Joseon dynasty’s political history, and an evolutionary form of political documentation which was also enabled by all the previous efforts to document the political history of Joseon.

역사교육의 정치적 성격과 다양성 논의

김종준 역사교육학회 2016 역사교육논집 Vol.58 No.-

This study was planned to examine whether the history community and the history education community made proper responses in the process from the controversy over the authorization of “Korean History” textbook by Kyohak Publishing to the controversy over the government designation of history textbooks. The investigator believes that there are two confrontation lines in those controversies. The academic circles made very active responses in the first line whose goals were to keep certain textbooks from getting authorized in an unfair manner and prevent the government designation of history textbooks. Once the true nature of massive hostile force whose presence was revealed outside the academic circles was confirmed, they addressed their internal cracks and conflicts and have confronted the force in such solidarity. There has been, however, another line within the academic circles, and it has something to do with whether the old academic circles have no problem in terms of essence of historical studies and history education. The investigator cited “politicity” and “diversity” as the aspects where the two lines are linked together and as the keywords that both the history and history education community should place importance on in the future. What is the essence of history education? The answer first should include a pursuit of intrinsic values of history education itself such as historical thinking and insight cultivation. History education can be a means of pursuing extrinsic values within the scope of its essential elements not being damaged. All sorts of various political and social forces have their requirements for history education as well as the history, history education, and education communities, which phenomenon is not wrong itself since all types of historical studies and history education cannot escape from the contemporary perspectives that inevitably contain the political judgments of each force. They should be, however, careful as excessive contemporary perspectives and political judgments can distort historical facts and further hinder the pursuit of intrinsic values of history education. When someone insists that certain content should not be taught to students, his or her insistence reflects the speaker's objectives of history education, which include his or her political positions. A political(or contemporary) perspective is projected onto the arguments that history education should cultivate national consciousness, have the students take pride in South Korea, help them enhance their quality as democratic citizens, and encourage them to have historical self-examination. It can be controversial which of the values is more important and which method of history education and what textbook content will be helpful. What is problematic is an attitude of advocating one's own arguments as the “right” truth and disparaging those of others as “political” biases. Such an attitude also violates the value of diversity. It will be a hollow attempt to emphasize only diversity without considering the political nature of history education.

논문 : 역사교육의 정치적 성격과 다양성 논의

김종준 ( Jong-jun Kim ) 역사교육학회 2016 역사교육논집 Vol.58 No.-

This study was planned to examine whether the history community and the history education community made proper responses in the process from the controversy over the authorization of "Korean History" textbook by Kyohak Publishing to the controversy over the government designation of history textbooks. The investigator believes that there are two confrontation lines in those controversies. The academic circles made very active responses in the first line whose goals were to keep certain textbooks from getting authorized in an unfair manner and prevent the government designation of history textbooks. Once the true nature of massive hostile force whose presence was revealed outside the academic circles was confirmed, they addressed their internal cracks and conflicts and have confronted the force in such solidarity. There has been, however, another line within the academic circles, and it has something to do with whether the old academic circles have no problem in terms of essence of historical studies and history education. The investigator cited "politicity" and "diversity" as the aspects where the two lines are linked together and as the keywords that both the history and history education community should place importance on in the future. What is the essence of history education? The answer first should include a pursuit of intrinsic values of history education itself such as historical thinking and insight cultivation. History education can be a means of pursuing extrinsic values within the scope of its essential elements not being damaged. All sorts of various political and social forces have their requirements for history education as well as the history, history education, and education communities, which phenomenon is not wrong itself since all types of historical studies and history education cannot escape from the contemporary perspectives that inevitably contain the political judgments of each force. They should be, however, careful as excessive contemporary perspectives and political judgments can distort historical facts and further hinder the pursuit of intrinsic values of history education. When someone insists that certain content should not be taught to students, his or her insistence reflects the speaker``s objectives of history education, which include his or her political positions. A political(or contemporary) perspective is projected onto the arguments that history education should cultivate national consciousness, have the students take pride in South Korea, help them enhance their quality as democratic citizens, and encourage them to have historical self-examination. It can be controversial which of the values is more important and which method of history education and what textbook content will be helpful. What is problematic is an attitude of advocating one``s own arguments as the "right" truth and disparaging those of others as "political" biases. Such an attitude also violates the value of diversity. It will be a hollow attempt to emphasize only diversity without considering the political nature of history education.

고려 정치제도사의 고전적 이해와 한계

이정훈(Lee Joung-Hoon) 한국사연구회 2009 한국사연구 Vol.145 No.-

This dissertation investigates the contents of 《Studies in the Political System of Koryo Dynasty》 written by Pyon Tae-Sup, the historic value and the characteristics and limit of his study in the Political System of Koryo Dynasty. Negating the identity and heteronomy of Korean society that was advocated in the Japanese Colonialism Study of Korean History, he viewed the society of Koryo in the position to understand historic development through study in the character and transition of ruling power and studied the Political System of Koryo Dynasty on such viewpoint. Then, he traced its transition, namely, while accepting the 3 departments 6 sections system of Dang, Koryo changed it to 2 departments 6 sections system in accordance with the society of Koryo. Furthermore, Koryo transformed the operation of national administration based on Jungseomunhasung and 6 sections to that based on Dopyungeuisasa. It seems that the structural analysis on the overall political system is meager, because the analysis is concentrated on power structure and power organization. Moreover, trusting 《The History of Korvo》 Baekkwanji, the study might overlook historic materials which are opposite to Baekkwanji. Considering the environment where the history of Koryo was studied in 1970 when 《Studies in the Political System of Koryo Dynasty》 was published, this limit looks very minute. Besides, the historic position and meaning of his study in the History of Koryo is not affected by this limit at all. On the contrary, his effort to trace the individuality of the society of Koryo and the universality of Korean history through the structure and property of Political System of Koryo Dynasty, the overall transition of political system and the political system notwithstanding the inferior environment for study might be exemplary to younger scholars. Analyzing this book, I could realize again his pains to develop the area of Political System of Koryo Dynasty which was barren land and the mental agony of the 1st generation researchers who tried to negate Japanese Colonialism Study of Korean History and to establish new Korean history. Finally, I am afraid that I might arbitrarily handle his strenuous book and fail to evaluate it properly due to my deficient capability.

梁啓超의 啓蒙주의 역사관과 國學

조병한(Cho, Byong-Han) 한국사학사학회 2007 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.16

In the period of the failed political reform, 1895~1898, Liang Qichao began to form an embryonic ideas of enlightenment, e.g. ‘new people’(新民), ‘enlightening people's intellect’(開民智), but his thoughts of those days were captured by the idea of political reform through Sino-Western syncretism, more advanced than the previous Yangwu(洋務) movement. Liang, a follower of Japanese model of Meiji Restoration(明治維新) in political reform, was transformed to one of earlier leaders of the Western-oriented enlightenment trend in China, considerably separated from Chinese traditional culture. His ideas of enlightenment was influenced by such Japanese achievements as Fukuzawa Yukichi represented. Now, his populous magazines were very powerful intermediaries to spread extensively the various western knowledges and ideas into literate classes of China proper, even Korea. As following Liang's conversion from political reform to enlightening propaganda, the focus of his thoughts and activities also moved from his teacher Kang Youwei's Confucian religious reform into the renaissance of ancient classical learning, reorganized under the influence of western scientificmethods. He found out the way to promote the national learning through rehabilitating ‘archaic learning’(古學), with pivotal position given to the various competitive schools(諸子學) during the period of ‘Spring-autumn annals and Warring states’(春秋戰國) before China was united by the universial empire since B.C. 221. In his opinion, the Chinese traditional learning, in Qing(淸) dinasty since 17th century, was on the way for revolving to the archaic learning via the learning of Han dynasty(漢學), the early empire, against the dominant current of Zhu Xi(朱熹)’s Neo-Confucianism since Song(宋) dinasty. Liang's national learning aimed to complete this task of Chinese renaissance. Liang's new history proposed the first modern theory for explanation of China's history, based on nationalism and histirical ideas of progress, which were introduced from the western ideas of history of civilization and Social Darwinism through the intermediary of modern Japan. His Chiese history as the history of one national state would exclude Kang's cosmopolitan utopianism, for even national imperialism was now accepted as one of universal stages of historical progress in the contemporary global world. His idea of new history already appeared in 1901 before he wrote the famous essay, “New History”(新史學) and “On New People”(新民說) in 1902. In his national history, the Chinese nation, the sovereign member of the national state as an artificial political community in the west, appeared united inseparably with the concepts of ethnic groups or human races, which Liang called as ‘race of state’(國族). But his modern nationalism, as power to unite national state, was composed of the national race and national learning, separated from two universalism of Confucian culture and Imperial politics. Liang's actual research on the national learning was concentrated on the history of Chinese philosophical schools and political thoughts. In his opinion,Chinese political tradition was characterized by the centralized despotism, the longest and most elaborate one in the world, and was contrasted against the decentralized feudal tradition in the medieval Europe. People's rights was not developed in China, for it was the despotic monarchs that defeated the feudal aristocracy in ancient China, while the self-governing communal cities did it in Europe, or the warrior class in Japan. He thought that the division of power among monarch, nobles and commoners, not people's equality under despotism, was favorable to promote people's rights.

탈(脫)정치적 글쓰기의 정치성 - 沈従文 글쓰기를 중심으로

이보고(Lee, Bo-Go) 동북아시아문화학회 2020 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.63

The evaluation of writing of Shen Congwen in the history of modern and contemporary literature that has been made so far significantly attributes to A History of Modern Chinese Fiction of Hsia Chih-tsing. When approaching the writing of Shen Congwen, the literary history described by Hsia Chih-tsing put emphasis on the de-historical or de-political context. However, this evaluation overlooked practice of “de-politicizing political nature” regarding the literary situation of the 1930s in which the writing of Shen Congwen represented of the time. This study judges that the de-political inclinations in the text of Shen Congwen not only existed as personal preference/taste, writing of memory or narrative of emotion, but also were a sort of choice of the era of excessive political nature and results of practice. The writing of Shen Congwen evidently consists of de-political context created as a product of collision with the mainstream of the time. Therefore, this study views that Shen’s writing was a practice including substantial political nature from the context of literary history despite the presence of de-political nature in the content of his writing. The work of Hsia Chih-tsing has ambivalence in the meaning. Without doubt, Shen’s writing techniques using impressionism-based narrative technique and operation of irony showed a new possibility while creating some extent of separation from the literary situation of the time. In this sense, it is true that Shen’s writing formed multiple narrative plots in the history of literature. Nonetheless, through independence or resistance from/against the existing values of literary history, in particular, considering that the literary world of the time was going through the age of excessive political nature, it is required to give new meaning in the evaluation of this impressionist techniques and irony from the perspective of denying and overcoming it. This study does not refute the fact that Shen’s achievement is remarkable in this new evaluation, in other words, in the evaluation of fragmentary literary aesthetics or the aesthetic analysis limited to the interiority of text. However, this study intends to verify that the evaluation can be different in the context possessed by his text, in other words, the context of literary history. This study interprets that Shen’s narrative of impressionist techniques and irony-based writing created between individuals and society by making a contrast between a city and the rural area pursue aesthetic completion inside the text, but his writing demonstrates the typical aspect of “de-politicized” political narrative in the macrocontext of the Chinese iterary history of the 1930s. According to this study’s analysis, for Shen Congwen, the realist writing reflecting contradictions in the reality to the fullest and nationalist writing portraying maximization of inner and outer contradictions of the nation as literature with excessive politics were the repression mechanism of political nature against literature. Challenging against this phenomenon, it seems that Shen was seeking alternative writing as a new mimesis by using impressionist narrative or literary irony.

현대 한국정치사 연구 서설 : 민주주의의 전개를 중심으로

박호성 한국정치외교사학회 2003 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.25 No.1

이 글은 한국정치사상사의 연구방법론과 연관해서 현대 한국정치사를 이해하는 새로운 접근방식을 모색하는 시도이다. 이러한 고찰은 정치사상에서 쟁점이 되는 특정 개념 혹은 주제를 중심으로 한국현대사를 통사적으로 서술하기 위한 시도의 일환이다. 또한 이 글에서 제기하는 문제는 한국 정치사의 서술에 앞서 고려해야 할 역사철학을 정립하는 전제 혹은 시론의 의미도 지니고 있다. 여기에서는 한국현대사의 전개에 대한 윤곽을 파악하는 데 정치적으로 중요한 의미가 있을 뿐 아니라, 다른 영역 혹은 쟁점들과 상관성이 높은 민주주의라는 주제를 논의의 단서로 삼았다. 특히 한국현대사의 전개를 서술하는 입장에서 고려해야 할 한국민주주의의 역사를 평가하는 기준, 역사를 보는 인식, 정치사 서술의 의의와 목표 및 한계, 정치사 서술에 개입되는 정치사상과 정치현실의 연관성 등에 주목하여 논의를 제기하였다. This is an essay to pursue a new approach in understanding the contemporary Korean political history in relation to research methodology of Korean political thought. It forms a part of the project to describe contemporary Korean history chronologically featuring a certain concept or subject which is important in political thought. In addition, it also works as a premise or propositional essay for establishing a theoretical framework before describing Korean political history. Here, I take democracy as main theme, which is a highly interrelated topic with other realms and issues as a clue for discussion. Major Points for a fair description of contemporary Korean political history arc as follows: an evaluative criterion on the history of democracy in Korea. an understanding on history, a significance, goal and limit in describing a political history, and a relation between political thought and reality for describing a political history.

중학교 국사교육의 의미와 내용구성

金漢宗(Kim, Han-Jong) 역사교육연구회 2012 역사교육 Vol.124 No.-

The purpose of this study is to research the meaning of Korean history education and to suggest the direction of its contents organization in middle school. History education helps middle school students know historical facts essential for social members. But history education should pay the attention to cultivate the student to become an adult who has the willingness for actively participating in solving social problems. For achieving this purpose, the contents of Korean history education should be history not as ‘proof’ but as ‘meaning’, and learning history should provide middle school students social experiences. I think it is desirable to organize Korean history syllabus with the general history focused on political history in middle school. But its frame should not be the political history as one of aspects, but as one which comprehends all the aspects relating to political affairs. Contents of middle school Korean history subject should be constructed with the form of the narrative which represent the flow of history. The institutional history should not be separatedly involved as an isolated aspect, but should be comprehended in the general history relating to political change, so that it might not make students get tired learning history. And various learning materials such as historical documents should be incorporated in text descriptions so that it can help students understand historical flows.