http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
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.