http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 최갑수(Choi Kab-soo) (검색결과 15 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
崔甲壽(Choi Kab-Soo) 역사학회 2006 역사학보 Vol.0 No.190
This paper aims to enhance an understanding of our unequal internal development problem by examining the relationships between the center and the provinces and their transformation in Europe in historical perspectives. The points at issue are as follows: 1) The rise of modem state in sixteenth century Europe accompanied a new principle of territoriality with hierarchical structure between a capital city and provinces. This proves that the geographical, social and cultural division of the capital city and provinces constitutes in itself a part of European modernity. 2) There was a great variation in the geography of the capital city and provinces from country to country in Europe. Four determinants, which brought about the differentiation of control system of territory, are as follow: ① the geopolitical distance from Rome, ② the geopolitical distance from the "urban belt" from Northern Italy to the areas once controlled by the Hanseatic League, ③ the concentrations of landholdings and the consequent relationship between the peasantry and its landlord, ④ the ethnic basis of the early efforts of centre-building. 3) The hierarchical structure between the capital city and provinces was considerably dissolved by the nationalization process of sovereign states through the twentieth century, though there was a considerable time lapse depending on countries. Particularly the national consensus to welfare state made the decentralization and regional autonomy possible. Although in 1960-70s various types of regionalism sprang up in almost every state in Europe, this witnesses that the raison d'etre of the state is rather reinforced to that extent. 4) The hierarchical structure between capital city and the provinces has also the civilizational dimension, and this reflects the reality of the so-called "civilizing process." In France, this structure was formed in the middle of the seventeenth century, and afterwards got imbedded into a mode of modernity, recently being dissolved. Indeed globalization and the European Integration seem to call for the post-modem principle of territoriality to raise the "provinces problem" at a new level.
-
-
최갑수(Choi, Kab-soo) 한국역사연구회 2013 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.87
Democracy was born in ancient Greece. Only recently several studies were announced that such order already appeared in Mesopotamia. But it is undeniable that the case of Athens was the most primary and fundamental example that should be examined in the history of democracy. Yet today, the democracy we have and enjoy and also operate nowadays, is a very different version compared to the democracy of ancient Greece. The two versions are even conflictive. It is clear that we have two ideological visions of democracy. One is "ancient democracy," and one is "modern democracy." The former refers to ‘the people"s direct control of themselves," while the latter refers to "democracy operated by representatives." These two visions are very different from each other. Why did this happen? This representative system is a totally different system from democracy, and hails back to the Feudalist days. At the times of the American and French revolutions in the latter half of the 18th century, the time of birth for modern democracy, a representative system was mainly an opposite concept of democracy, and was rather a huddle for the people to reach the state of democracy. I do not believe that this "representative democracy" system was embraced because modern states have larger territories and larger populations. The new leadership born with the revolutions were facing a different social situation, and were in need of seizing a new kind of Hegemony. So, democracy and the representative system was merged with each other in a very odd way, and that became the root of the so-called "crisis of democracy" we are witnessing today. The two democratic revolutions mentioned above were the birth of ‘modern democracy’ and the efforts to overcome it. The lessons learned back then shall prove useful in our efforts of resolving our own "crisis of democracy."
-
-
최갑수(Choi, Kab-Soo) 역사학회 2014 역사학보 Vol.0 No.224
In traditional era chroniclers did not always write suiting power’s taste in spite of patronage, inversely modern history as a distinct discipline never deviated exceedingly from social, and even political demands. Nevertheless history as a separate discipline have achieved some relative independence from the state power and civil society, and have accomplished very rich and abundant outcomes copping with etatisme or nationalism. One of the most remarkable instances is the historiography of French Revolution, especially the ‘classical’ interpretation about it. However historical studies have not being done in a vacuum, ultimately never overcoming its nature of ‘ideologie d’Etat’. In cases which historical studies exceed that maximum envelope in spite of public support and funding, the relative autonomy given to Academia is plainly discarded and, in extreme circumstances, debates disclose bluntly their character of ideology disregarding its ‘scientific’ norm. One of the coup de theatre is Francois Furet’s defiance and diatribe on Albert Soboul. In this case, we witness that Public Sphere at domestic and international level played in the long run a role as a final judge. Therefore we have to put together, not only the inner, but also external dimensions of Academia, not merely the effects of state power, but power relations of social forces, in order to understand properly the real worth of historical interpretations.
-
-
-
-
최갑수 ( Kab Soo Choi ) 한국서양사연구회(구 서울대학교 서양사연구회) 2021 서양사연구 Vol.- No.64
There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the trial of Louis XVI, especially within National Convention at every stage of the trial (whether or not to prosecute, indictment, interrogation and pleading, and voting on guilt, sentence, ratification of the people, reprieve, etc.). In terms of 'fall of the monarchy’, the most noteworthy part is the debate over whether the king will be tried or not. This is because the ‘Constitution of 1791’ stipulated the king’s sacred inviolability, that is, the privilege of immunity. The series of debates surrounding the trial of Louis XVI give us two major implications in relation to our problem. One is the historical significance of the royal trial. In the traditional era, usurpation and assassination of kings were common events in Europe, but such expulsion of the monarch strengthened rather than undermined the historical basis and legitimacy of the monarchy. For the monarchy to formally end, an alternative political order had to be imagined, and the king’s trial was a rite of passage that must be passed for this purpose. It is not the assassination like the manner of Shakespearian tragedies which secretly kill the kings, but the king’s trial and execution carried out by the new legitimate power under the name of the popular sovereignty in broad daylight in the centre of the capital city while the crowds are gathering, that historically ended the rule of monarchs. In fact, after the execution of Louis XVI, the monarchs continued to reign, but the mystery, splendor, and awe enjoyed by the monarchy have virtually disappeared. The other is that although National Convention tried to give the royal trial a form of lawfulness in its own way, and in fact, the trial was generally conducted in the manner suggested by the ‘Girondins’, the most influential faction at the beginning of the trial, paradoxically, the argument of Saint-Just, who insisted on the immediate execution of the king without a trial, rather defined the main line of the Louis XVI trial. “On ne peut point regner innocemment.” Accepting the premises of the social contract and popular sovereignty, “Tout roi est un rebelle et un usurpateur.” Thus the events of August 10, 1792 effectively determined the fate of the monarchy. The right to revolution lay at the foundation of the legitimacy of the modern bourgeois order. (Seoul National University / kchoi7@snu.ac.kr)
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
