西洋史 敎育의 過去와 現在 : 中等敎育을 中心으로

林志弦(Lim Jie Hyun) 역사교육연구회 1986 역사교육 Vol.40 No.-

특수논문 : 서양사 속의 민주주의; 독재는 민주주의의 반의어(反意語)인가? -대중독재의 모순어법과 민주주의의 민주화-

임지현 ( Jie Hyun Lim ) 한국서양사학회 2013 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.116

Mass dictatorship as a working hypothesis was designed to challenge the antithetical comparison of dictatorship and democracy inherent to the old school of totalitarian scholarship and the political common sense of the demonological dichotomy in the Cold War era. Initiated by the problematics of how to democratize democracy, the mass dictatorship thesis raises a set of questions: what if majoritarian democracy in the modern nation-state is based on the categorization of minorities as ``Others`` in terms of nation, class, gender, race, ethnicity and so on? What if the majority tyrannize minorities? Is that democracy or is it dictatorship? In answering these questions, it tries to comprehend the common ground between twentieth century mass dictatorships and mass democracies in their attempted mobilization of masses to participate voluntarily in and to support the regime. By locating the Holocaust in the context of the continuity of ``Western`` colonialism rather than by recourse to German peculiarities, the mass dictatorship thesis bridges between Western modernity and German peculiarity in perpetrating genocide. What I mean is not that dictatorship is the same as democracy, but that the dividing line is blurred much more than what was previously thought. That critical overview of the interwoven history of mass dictatorships and mass democracies in the twentieth century would lead us to a self-reflexive question of how to democratize democracies in the twenty first century.

전지구적 기억공간과 희생자의식- 홀로코스트, 식민주의 제노사이드, 스탈린주의테러의 기억은 어떻게 만나는가? -

임지현 ( Jie-hyun Lim ) 대구사학회 2016 대구사학 Vol.125 No.-

이 논문은 전지구적 기억 공간에서 합류하는 서로 다른 희생자의식이 빚어내는 기억의 경합과 갈등, 상호 참조와 접합 등의 복합적 양상을 비교사적이고 `얽혀있는 기억`이라는 관점에서 추적한다. 더 구체적으로는 `내면적 지구화`의 관점에서 홀로코스트, 식민주의 제노사이드, 스탈린주의 테러의 기억들이 서로 얽혀 때로는 서로의 희생자의식을 같이 강화하는 시너지 효과 또는 서로가 서로를 배척하는 기억의 제로섬 게임으로 나타나는 기억의 정치를 역사적 맥락 속에서 고찰한다. 세 가지 희생자의식에 대한 비교 연구를 통해 전지구적 기억공간에서 기억의 탈민족화와 재민족화를 동시에 가속화하는 모순적 힘들의 움직임을 추적하여 그 작동방식을 드러냄으로써, 서로 얽혀 있는 희생자의식의 기억들이 얼마나 복합적이며 양가적인가를 설명하고자 한다. 공간적으로는 전지구적 기억 공간을 대상으로 하되, 시간적으로는 이념적 금기 때문에 억눌렸던 스탈린주의 테러와 식민주의 제노사이드에 대한 기억들이 분출되고 홀로코스트에 대한 `역사가논쟁`이 희생자의식의 위계화 문제와 포스트 콜로니얼리즘의 문제의식과 만나는 탈냉전 이후 시기를 다룬다. 또 인식론적으로는 아르메니아 제노사이드, 홀로코스트, 일본군 위안부, 난징대학살, 원폭투하, 연합군의 대공습, 식민주의적 잔학행위, 전쟁범죄, 아파르트하이드, 르완다의 인종학살, 구 유고슬라비아의 인종청소에 대한 기억들이 자신의 역사적 정당성을 옹호하기 위해 전지구적 기억공간에서 끊임없이 상호-참조되는 양상에 대한 비교 검토를 통해, 자신의 희생자의식에 더 진정한 역사적 정통성을 부여하기 위해 구사되는 다양한 서사 전략들을 비판적으로 재구성할 것이다. 궁극적으로 이 논문을 추동한 문제의식은 전후 전지구적 기억 공간을 지배하고 있는 `희생자의식 민족주의`를 기억연구, 비교사, 트랜스내셔널 메모리의 맥락에서 문제화함으로써, 민족의 경계를 넘어서는 21세기적 기억의 지형도가 어떻게 가능할지 가늠해보는 데 있다. This paper traces how the memories of victimhood have been entangled in the global memory space by investigating the mnemonic confluence of Holocaust, colonial genocide and Stalinist terror in the post-Cold War era. Three analytical dimensions of the spatial, temporal and epistemological compose the structure of the paper. Firstly, the spatial dimension posits the global memory space. It will show how the vernacular memory of the Stalinist terror flowed into the mnemonic confluence of the Holocaust and colonial atrocities to broaden the memory space from the bipolar world of the West and non-West into the global one including Eastern Europe. Secondly, the paper puts the temporal focus on the post-Cold War era by explicating the East European version of Historikerstreit and the postcolonial Vergangenheitsbewaltigung triggered by the `Fall`. Oppressed memories of the Stalinist terror and colonial genocide, unchained from the ideological yoke of the Cold War, caused the memory avalanche to reshape the mnemoscape globally. Thirdly, the historical authenticity of competing victimhood will be analyzed on the epistemological level. As the memory contest and the recognition struggle for one`s own national cause intensified globally, historical authenticity became an ideological battlefield among competing nations. This essay aims to problematize `victimhood nationalism` and other mnemonic nationalisms by explicating complexities and ambivalence of entangled memories of the victimhood which has been fluctuated between the de-nationalization and re-nationalization of the memory.

‘역사가’ 되기의 어려움

임지현(Lim, Jie-Hyun) 역사학회 2015 역사학보 Vol.0 No.228

This paper problematizes the ‘Western history’ as a disciplinary field by scrutinizing the tri-partite structure of history research and educaiton in the postcolonial Korea. Western history as a discipline carries the multi-layered transnationality of the modern historiography on a global scale. The global trajectory of the modern historiography shows that ‘Western history’ is a conspicuous co-product of Eurocentrism, Self-Orientalism, Japanese Orientalism, the bifurcation of the Universal and the Particular, discursive struggle for the national recognition and Marxist historicism. ‘Western history’ in East Asia represents the hegemonic mirror onto which national histories in Japan and Korea reflect their own historical peculiarities. That explains why ‘Western history’ has worked as a nationalist rationale. In this paper the disciplinary history of ‘Western history’ will be interwoven with the ego-history of myself who had started one’s academic career as a ‘Western historian’ and grew to a transnational/global historian. Once put in the intellectual interaction on a global scale, the ego-history of a Western historian leaving traces in the postcolonial Korea, post-communist Poland and transnational problem space would contribute to unlearning ‘Western history’ per se.

특집 : 소련 해체 후 러시아,동유럽 역사 재조명 ; 역사의 금기(禁忌)와 기억의 진정성 -21세기 폴란드 역사학과 "희생자의식"-

임지현 ( Jie Hyun Lim ) 한국서양사학회 2011 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.111

Focused on the Jedwabne controversy, this paper aims at reconfiguration of the post-communist historiography in Poland since the ``fall`` of 1989. By revealing arguably a certain continuity of the historical narrative between before and after 1989, the paper throws a critical gaze at the cliche dichotomy of the communist and post-communist historiography: the both shared historical episteme of the victimhood despite the political opposition in specific descriptions of historical events. Be leftist or rightist, the Polish historiography has been nurtured by the Romanticist conception of ``crucified nation`` of the 19th century. The self-perception of collective victims has provided Poles with a morally comfortable position and justified the ethno-centric victimhood nationalism in Poland for more than a century. Jan Gross`s book of Sasiedzi shattered the Polish victimhood deeply rooted in the historical culture in large by proving that Polish neighbors were perpetrators in the massacre of the Jews in Jedwabne in 1941. The book tremendously triggered sharp debates among professional historians, general intellectuals and media people. In fact it brought a climate change to the historiographical landscape in Poland by complicating the victimhood as a naive default for the historical culture and thus opening a door to the self-reflection of one`s own past.

‘지구사’ 연구의 오늘과 내일

임지현(Jie-Hyun Lim) 역사비평사 2008 역사비평 Vol.- No.83

Transnational History as a Methodological Nationalism : Comparative Perspectives on Europe and East Asia

Jie-Hyun Lim (임지현) 西江大學敎 人文科學硏究所 2008 서강인문논총 Vol.24 No.-

Transnational history is a new trend in the historical writings of the twenty first century. Transnational history has been assumed as an alternative narrative to the national history paradigm which was dominant in the modern historiography. A scrupulous reading of the transnational history writings, however, betrays such an expectation. Transnational history has been often no less national. Traced back to the late nineteenth century, East Asian transnationalism has been often translated into the racial struggle between white people and yellow people. Transnationalism, often pregnant with nationalist ideas, is hardly unique to East Asia. Disguised in the various form of the universal history, transnational history in the service of the nationalist ideas can be found in Europe and America. With a focus on East Asia within the comparative perspectives, this paper will illuminate how various orientations of transnational history accommodated nationalist agenda. 21세기 역사 서술의 새로운 트렌드로 등장한 트랜스내셔널 히스토리는 19세기 이후 근대 역사학을 지배해 온 ‘국사’의 패러다임을 대체하는 대안적 역사 서술로 흔히 간주되고 있다. 그러나 트랜스내셔널 히스토리의 역사 서술을 깊이 읽다 보면, 그것이 국사의 대안적 패러다임이라는 우리의 믿음은 쉽사리 깨진다. 트랜스내셔널 히스토리가 때때로 ‘국사’ 못지않게 민족주의적인 것이다. 19세기 말의 범아시아주의로 거슬러 올라가는 동아시아의 트랜스내셔널리즘은 종종 백인종과 황인종의 싸움에서 일본을 맹주로 하는 아시아인의 단결과 인종주의적 투쟁을 정당화하는 논리로 작동했다. 이처럼 민족주의와 결합한 트랜스내셔널 히스토리 혹은 트랜스내셔널리즘은 비단 동아시아만의 특수성은 아니었다. ‘보편사’의 다양한 형태로 가장한 채 민족주의에 복무하는 트랜스내셔널 히스토리는 유럽과 미국에서도 폭넓게 발견된다. 이 논문은 유럽과의 비교사적 전망을 견지하면서 동아시아에 초점을 맞추면서 민족주의적 아젠다와 접목되어 온 트랜스내셔널 히스토리의 다양한 양상을 조명하고자 한다.

사회주의 민족이론과 소련의 민족문화정책 : 민족어정책의 변천사를 중심으로

임지현(Jie Hyun Lim) 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 1991 중소연구 Vol.15 No.1

폴란드의 사회주의와 애국주의

임지현 ( Jie Hyun Lim ) 한국서양사학회 1991 西洋史論 Vol.37 No.1

역사 화해와 용서의 정치: 동아시아의 기억공간에서 폴란드-독일 주교단 편지 다시 읽기

임지현(Lim, Jie-Hyun) 역사학회 2020 역사학보 Vol.0 No.246

This article starts with a premise on how to appropriate “the Polish Bishops’ Appeal to the German Colleagues (1965)” as a cross-reference for the history reconciliation in East Asia. Once spread, the Polish Episcopate’s letter became a historical event for its message of “we forgive and we ask for forgiveness.” The letter signaled the shift of the conventional dichotomy of the collective guilt and innocence from the nationalist political instrumentalism into an ethical vision of forgiveness and reconciliation. With the compliments of the ‘avant-garde of reconciliation’ and ‘the greatest foresight in the postwar Poland,’ the “Appeal” showed how the Catholic Church as a transnational agency could be a paradigm changer for the history reconciliation. The “Appeal” carries an empathy for the misery of not innocent German refugees and self-criticism of the transgression of the Polish revenge, which gives transnational memory activists some leeway to overcome the old antagonism between guilt and suffering, and the zero-sum game of the victimhood nationalism. “What would it mean to transpose the Polish Bishops’ Letter from Central-Eastern Europe of 1965 into present-day East Asia?” needs to be answered thoughtfully yet, despite some try in this article.