누가, 누구를 어떻게 다시 읽을 수 있을까? — ‘민중사’의 한계와 정체성 정치 — (Who, whom, how can I read again? — Recognizing the limitations of ‘Minjungsa’ —)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 수선사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 사림 / 83호 / 81 ~ 107페이지
· 저자명 : 한봉석

초록

The popular history research methodology is still considered to be a meaningful methodology in the times. In particular, when trying to construct Korean history as a narrative called the ‘state’, it seems that research on popular history still contains a meta-critical character. And this point is connected to the limitations of the popular historical research methodology. The study of popular history criticizes the state, violence, and premise, but rather maintains an ambiguous point about the content of the people. This may be intended to use public discourse as an open symbol, but paradoxically, it is seen that it shares an “ideological” characteristic that cannot survive independently, apart from the current modern state narrative (mainly the developing state narrative). In other words, when the modern state is excluded from the narrative, when it returns to human nature or non-human beings, who can the discourse on public affairs describe? When the enemy does not exist – in this case, when there is no enemy that can be captured by the eyes of the intellectual, or when the intellectual does not capture the enemy – will the public discourse be able to exert its unique power?In this regard, it is necessary to deeply reflect on the fact that research on popular history does not have a unique narrative method for research on minorities and women. It is necessary to postpone it to the “later” that most researchers in popular history will achieve, and to discuss in depth what was prepared for the accident. A significant point in the new popular history is that it was eventually a practice of researchers' empathy for the times. If so, it is thought that it is time for the researcher's own position on the newly emerging “people” in the changed era and to re-grind philosophy.

영어초록

The popular history research methodology is still considered to be a meaningful methodology in the times. In particular, when trying to construct Korean history as a narrative called the ‘state’, it seems that research on popular history still contains a meta-critical character. And this point is connected to the limitations of the popular historical research methodology. The study of popular history criticizes the state, violence, and premise, but rather maintains an ambiguous point about the content of the people. This may be intended to use public discourse as an open symbol, but paradoxically, it is seen that it shares an “ideological” characteristic that cannot survive independently, apart from the current modern state narrative (mainly the developing state narrative). In other words, when the modern state is excluded from the narrative, when it returns to human nature or non-human beings, who can the discourse on public affairs describe? When the enemy does not exist – in this case, when there is no enemy that can be captured by the eyes of the intellectual, or when the intellectual does not capture the enemy – will the public discourse be able to exert its unique power?In this regard, it is necessary to deeply reflect on the fact that research on popular history does not have a unique narrative method for research on minorities and women. It is necessary to postpone it to the “later” that most researchers in popular history will achieve, and to discuss in depth what was prepared for the accident. A significant point in the new popular history is that it was eventually a practice of researchers' empathy for the times. If so, it is thought that it is time for the researcher's own position on the newly emerging “people” in the changed era and to re-grind philosophy.

참고자료

· 없음