Historians and Historical Writing in Modern Korea, The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol 5. (Oxford University Press, 2011) (original) (raw)
European Journal of Korean Studies, 2021
The heuristic starting point for this paper is a critical approach to the enterprise of modern historiography per se, based on the understanding of it as inherently bound by teleological epistemology. While "Korean nationalism" is the usual vantage point for the critique of modern Korean historiography, the current article attempts to reverse this analytical perspective and reassess a number of attempts to write on Korean history by US-based historians of Korea in the 1910s-1980s as reflections of inherently self-centric picture of the world. In this Eurocentric picture, traditional Korea was locked into a historical trajectory via which "modernity" was unachievable.
European Journal of Korean Studies, 2021
The heuristic starting point for this paper is a critical approach to the enterprise of modern historiography per se, based on the understanding of it as inherently bound by teleological epistemology. While “Korean nationalism” is the usual vantage point for the critique of modern Korean historiography, the current article attempts to reverse this analytical perspective and re-assess a number of attempts to write on Korean history by US-based historians of Korea in the 1910s–1980s as reflections of inherently self-centric picture of the world. In this Eurocentric picture, traditional Korea was locked into a historical trajectory via which “modernity” was unachievable.
HISTORIOGRAPHY S ince very early times, human beings have had some sense of the past, both their own and that of their community or people. This is something that has distinguished us from other species. Having said that, historiography in the narrower sense of " intentional attempts to recover knowledge of and represent in writing true descriptions or narratives of past events " has had a rather briefer career throughout the world, though one more complex and variegated than most accounts allow. It is not possible in the space of a brief essay such as this to convey the entire richness of the human effort to recapture the past, but an effort must be made to summarize the historio-graphical traditions of many different regions. At least three major (in terms of their international scope, longevity, and influence) and a variety of minor independent traditions of historical thought and writing can be identified. The major ones are the Western (descended jointly from the classical Greek and Roman and, via the Old Testament, from the Hebraic), the Islamic (originating in the seventh century C.E.), and the Chi-nese. Minor ones include the various indigenous traditions of thinking about the past (not all of which involved writing), including ancient Indian, precolonial Latin American, African, and those arising in certain parts of east and Southeast Asia. The Western form (which would include modern Marxist Chinese writing) has predominated for a century or more in most of the world, but it would be a mistake to see that as either inevitable or as based on an innate intellectual superiority of method. Its hegemony springs much more from the great influence of Western colonial powers in various parts of the world during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and perhaps even more from the profound effect in the last hundred years of Western, and especially North American, cultural, linguistic, and economic influences. A consequence of the global dominance of Western academic historical practices is that not just history, but historiography, has been " written by the victors. " None of the major histories of historical writing produced in the last century addresses other historiographical traditions, undoubtedly in part owing to linguistic difficulties. This has produced a thoroughly decontextual-ized and celebratory grand narrative of the rise of modern method that has only been challenged in recent years. It is thus critical that any new survey of historical writing not only pay serious attention to non-Western types of historical writing (and indeed to nonliterary ways in which the past was recorded and transmitted), but that it also steer clear of assuming that these were simply inferior forms awaiting the enlightenment of modern European-American methodology.
Explain how the subject of history was professionalized and institutionalized in line with the formation or strengthening of national identities, and what other forms of history writing arose to challenge the nationalist model? It is fascinating to imagine that at one point every academic discipline was just a hobby, including history. Unlike science that took a brief time to be perceived as a serious subject, history took awhile. Yet, it was thanks to Leopold von Ranke, Karl Marx, George Bancroft, Henry Thomas Buckle and many more that wrote history and represented themselves as professionals to ultimately make history an academic discipline in every university. However these influential historians had political agendas and many of them were loud and clear about their nationalistic identity. This essay will examine how professionalization of history was an exact byproduct of nationalist history. The nationalist history had immense effect and reached almost every corner of the Westeren world. Every historian felt the need to be a part of the nationalistic circle. The 19th century saw a positive reaction to such history, however in the 20th century after the two World Wars, more historians saw interest in other cultures and regions that were not a part of the Westeren world. Therefore a second task of this essay will be to explore the criticism towards the nationalist history and to what extent was it the reason for historians to change their focus on the unheard, the women and the minorities. The awakening of the nationalist history At the end of the 18th century, history was not yet an academic discipline and therefore not popular amongst the Enlightenment thinkers who were at the time more fascinated with science. However, with the outcome of the French Revolution in 1799. more amateur historians took interest in the political climate of Europe which was one of the consequence that led to the rise of nationalism. The French Revolution had an enormous effect on the neighboring countries and out of the criticism towards the French Revolution, historians realized that the nation is the key force in modern history. After Prussian defeat from Napoleon, German public had strong
17. Revisiting History and Endeavoring on Writing Historiography: Praxis and Silwal's Practice
In order to challenge the prototypical and exclusionary observation of history over past events and archrivals, currently scholars have laid an extensive focus on writing historiography, which, as per they define, preferably documents to bring forth the non-political events, non-political agents and hidden truths and then tries to acknowledge their powerful roles in social changes, political transformation and movements. Besides, it sets up an anal of the facts, which are covered for long and are not disclosed. This paper observes such writing trend in book titled 'Kalam' by an emerging journalist of Nepal, Mr. Ashok Silwal. History vs. Historiography Only the truth is that no truth is permanent and inflexible; hence, changes are the ultimate truth in universe. So is in History. History records the past, and offers a set of discourses to future generation about bygone legacies and inheritances. Generally, history, as mechanical memorization, counts political decays and development, changes in power equations, governing modes, and basically fluxes in rulers. Being an elitist in characteristics, the praxis of writing history, till the time, except some exceptions, only acknowledges few counted political figures, lead persons and then virtually denies the constructive contributions made from the rest of others. Neither only politics neither is the history nor are only politicians the actors for changes and developments. There are many nonpolitical events and nonpolitical agents to unleash undying contributions for progress. History is being quite apathetic for those. Hence, a new methodology of observation has to take place in process of documenting history that is a great deal termed as 'historiography'. Notions on Historiography To rebut discriminatory practices of setting archival of history, currently, the trend of historiography, which is a process of 'determining and re-determining itself in the spirit' (38) as said by Croce, has developed; and it equitably assesses the role of all other agents who have contributed in history building process. It encompasses every other 'macro to micro level agents' for changes. Historiography lobbies for streamlining those all 'yet ignored' forces and brings the 'hidden claim' (Karapidakis 111) out. Dignifying and documenting the role of pro-poor, unrevealed one and virtually subalternized is arch-objective of historiography. Guha writes " For, it fails to acknowledge, far less interpret, the contribution made by the people on their own, that is independently of the elite to the making and development of this nationalism " (43) and briefs about lopsidedly blinkered history that has profoundly displaced the roles that normal people made for Indian Independence. To fulfill the gap, he exhorts on writing
This paper extends the concepts delineated in our earlier paper 'Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-first Century school of Historiography' and uses them to enunciate the core principles which we believe will form a part of the proposed Twenty-first century school of Historiography. This paper therefore strives to provide the vehicular platform upon which the objectives set forth in the aforesaid paper should be ideally nurtured and furthered. This paper additionally strives to buttress and substantiate our proposals with further arguments. The Twenty-first century school of historiography, it must be stated at the very outset, does not stem from any kind of a rebellious, a contrarian or a recalcitrant approach but intends to ensure that the field is suitably modernized keeping in mind the requirements of the Twenty-first century without jettisoning appreciable or profitable aspects of existing approaches. This paper attempts, at the same time to steer clear of the perils and pitfalls of postmodernism and intellectual nerdism and forge a new trajectory altogether. This approach also seeks to be as commodious and all-encompassing as possible by proactively embracing as many existing approaches as possible except dour and anachronistic ones, and others that have outlived their utility. It also seeks to formulate dialectical approaches in all facets and endeavours. We also argue that this is not only because all existing approaches are inadequate to cater to the rapidly changing requirements of the Twenty-First Century but also because we are already at the thin end of the wedge and existing approaches are inevitably fraught with unsavoury consequences, and will throw up counter-reactions in the longer term. As noted in our earlier papers, dialectical approaches and approaches based on critical analysis and scientific method would be the key to grappling with the sobering realities and the changed requirements of the Twenty-first century and would be the keystone to further progress across varied disciplines. This paper also emphasizes the proactive aspect of historiography, as this is at the core of all efforts to make it a meaningful and a modern discipline. This paper also delineates the social duties and functions of a historian and reinforces his role and duties in ushering in rapid social and cultural change and expediting scientific progress across disciplines. 'Historiography by Objectives' and other attendant approaches, first mooted in the aforesaid paper, continue, of course, to be an inalienable part of the overall proposals of this paper.