역사교과서의 서술과 유럽중심주의|RISS 상세보기

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Euro-centrism is a keyword in recent Korean historical research, and it is rather natural that discussions revolving it are to be reflected in history teaching and textbook writing. Debates on the definition and meaning of Euro-centrism have been prevailed. But at present, the problem of how to deconstruct or overcome this hitherto unchallenged phenomenon is getting more serious attention from Korean scholars of Western history, some of whose works were compiled in pursuit of ‘World histories beyond the Euro-centric World History’. In teaching secondary level world history, a new concept of global perspective is now being emphasized and the so called thematic approach, focusing more on regional interaction, is suggested.
However, this approach alone can hardly be adequate to textbook writing based on our own historical perspective. The concept of “theme” needs to be clarified. Regional interactions cannot cover diverse pre-modern historical events of the non-European world. Rather than prematurely implementing this unproved suggestion in textbook writing, it is necessary to inquire into the presupposition of using terms or concepts in textbook writing. For example, why do we compare the so called Western medieval “feudalism” to the ancient Chou(周) feudalism and describe the former as “typical”, without paying attention to the historical specificity of the latter? How about the terms “revolution”, or “modernization”? Why should Western historical events or concepts be the model or norm which non-European histories are measured or standardized against?
Before restructuring history textbook writing according to another imported frame of reference, such as “thematic approach”, it is required to critically examine these presuppositions and examples in textbook writing. Eurocentrism in school history should be dealt with, first, by finding these and questioning their unchanging usage.

번역하기