Rethinking and Recasting Korean Social
History: Envisioning a Third-Wave Korean Social History Problematic
CHUNG Il-Joon
Abstract
The purpose of this
article is to review the past and present publications of Korean social
history. Instead of a chronological review, the article introduces the third
wave of social history scholars and their research agendas. One of social
history’s defining characteristics is a concern with the formation and
transformation of modernity. In this respect the problematic of social history
concerns the present, viewed as being both shaped by and shaping the past. As
well, this article emphasizes alternative research projects which might
overcome the present methodological nationalism and ahistoricism that typically
take the form of chronofetishism and tempocentrism. Finally, the need to recast
the theme of nationalism and historical memory is raised.
Keywords: Social history, modernity, methodological nationalism,
chronofetishism, tempocentrism, problematic, historicity, globality,
reflexivity
Chung Il-Joon is a Professor of
Sociology at Korea University, and is recently a Visiting
Scholar at the Graduate School of
International Cooperation Studies at Kobe University in Japan. He was also a
Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica in Taiwan and
the Jackson School of International Studies at University of Washington and a
Visiting Fellow at the Harvard-Yenching Institute. He earned his PhD from Seoul
National University in 2000. His co-authored books include The ROK and USA Relationship
(Myungin Munwhasa, 2012), A Comparative
Historical Study of the May 16th Coup and Park Chung Hee’s Modernization
Project (Sunin, 2012), and The
Prospect of Public Sociology in South Korea (Saemulgyul, 2010), among many
others. He has also published widely in major Korean academic journals in the
area of historical sociology. His current research interests involve comparing
the history of nationalism and in South-North Korea and Taiwan-China focusing
on the politics of nation building.
E-mail: ijchung@korea.ac.kr
Journal of
Contemporary Korean Studies Vol. 1, No. 1 (December 2014) : 77~110
© 2014 National Museum of Korean Contemporary
History, Korea
Introduction: The rise and decline of modern Korean social
history
The purpose of this article is to review the
major publications of Korean social historians and historical sociologists.1 Social history
occupies an ambiguous space between history and sociology, standing between the
idiographic and the nomothetic in both sociology and history. But from the
standpoint of the underlying ontological and epistemological issues, the
distinction between history and sociology makes little sense (Steinmetz,
2007b). Hence, it is not an easy job to decide what should be included in a
review such as this one and how it should be included. To lessen this
difficulty, here I adopt a simple criteria: I have used how a writer identifies
himself or herself to determine the particularities of their inclusion.2 If particular
articles or books that deal with social historical themes and/or historical
sociological methods have been written by someone who identifies themselves as
a sociologist, for example, I count them as part of the social history
literature.
One of social history’s defining
characteristics is a concern with the formation and transformation of modernity
(Delanty and Isin 2003). In this respect, the problematic of social history
concerns the present, viewed as being both shaped by and shaping the past.
Here, instead of conducting a conventional chronological review of social
history publications, I want to go further by pointing out a new problematic
that seems to have emerged in recent scholarship. There are already many review
articles that deal with trends in social history research within South Korea.3 I will pay particular
attention to alternative research projects that just may overcome the present methodological nationalism and ahistoricism that typically take the
form of chronofetishism and tempocentrism.4 Although I agree with
most of the existing reviews (note 3) in terms of their diagnoses of academic
trends in this field, I will challenge some of the views expressed by other
authors.
This article is arranged as follows. In the
first part I will discuss historical and statistical trends in social history
publications, and in the second introduce new trends that have appeared in the
field and discuss some characteristics of this newly emerging scholarship.
Finally, there will be a brief discussion about what the future might hold for
the social history field.
Trends in social history and critical reflections: Beyond methodological
nationalism and chronofetishism5
There are many ways we can summarize the
academic histories of particular branches of the humanities and social
sciences. One can focus on a particular academic association and the journal(s)
published by that association. Alternatively, one may review the output of key
individuals within a particular field, as well as their relationships and
networks. Most scholars, when they write review articles, choose the former
method. Though this method has the virtue of being an institution-based public
approach, it also runs the risk of narrowing the scholarship and focusing on
the quantitative aspects, thereby ignoring changes in social contexts inside
and outside academia. The latter method, reviewing the output, etc. of key
figures, faces the relevance problem, i.e. the question of who should be
included, and which materials and documents should be depended upon. However,
given the limited number of social history specialists in South Korea,
utilizing the latter approach is feasible and can hopefully lead to a more
complete picture of the field.
In order to understand past and present trends
and garner a general picture of the social history field in Korea, we should
start our discussion with the history of the Korean Sociological Association,6 and also consider the
Economy and Society journal.7 In fact, the Korean Journal of Sociology, Society and History and Economy and Society are the three major
sociology journals in Korea and each has a long history (Korean Sociological
Association 2007). If we do not take these journals into consideration at the
same time, we omit many valuable contributions to social history.8 Indeed, considering
the dynamics of academic differentiation really matters.
We can divide the field into three generations
of scholars. The first generation in the field of Korean social history
includes Choi Jai Seok, Choi Hong-Ki, Kim Young-Mo, Park Yong-Shin, and Shin
Yong-Ha (Kim P-D 1995).9 The second-generation scholars attended university during the
1970s and began research and teaching between the early 1980s and mid-1990s.
There are many key figures10 in this generation including An Ho-Yong, Chi Sung-Jong, Cho
Sung Yoon, Jun Sang-In, Jeong Jin Sang, Jung Keun-Sik, Kim Dong-Choon, Kim
Dong-No, Kim Keong-il , Kim Pil-Dong, Kim Yeong-Beom, Lee Hye Sook, Park
Myoung-kyu, and Shin Gi-Wook. The third generation belongs to the so-called
“386”generation, and younger scholars. They did their undergraduate studies
between the 1980s and early 1990s and received PhDs from the mid-1990s onward.
Some of them secured jobs within academia but most began their careers as
researchers at research institutes. I will introduce the academic achievements
of this group a little later on in this paper. For now I would like to
delineate some trends in social history publications.
The rise of social history in
South Korea: Institutionalizing social history as part of sociology
Let me briefly summarize the historical and
political background of social history’s rise in South Korea. After liberation from
Japanese colonial rule, the Korean peninsula was divided and occupied by the
United States in the South and the Soviet Union in the North. The modern state
formation process was limited according to the territories of occupation
forces. Then came the Korean War, and its massive casualties. Anti-communism
and anti-North Korean sentiments became deeply entrenched in the South Korean
mind. Since the modern state form of South Korea does not match the nation’s
form, a nation-state has yet to be established (instead, Korea is a “divided
nation-state” or a “broken nation-state”). The armistice was signed and a
system of division imposed on the Korean peninsula as part of the Cold War.
During the First Republic of Rhee Syngman, the “March North” was a hegemonic
state project until the Rhee regime was overthrown by the April revolution of
1960. In the era of the American military government (1945–1948), South Korea
came under the influence of American modernity. During this time, Americans not
only created the South Korean military, but also established education
institutions, including South Korea’s university system. The quantitative
growth of universities that preceded the Korean War was accompanied by the
ascendance of the American university education model, as well as the
importation of the American academic paradigm. Thus, the South Korean
intellectual community was heavily influenced by the United States. Under the
Park Chung-hee regime, the state pursued modernization in the real world, and
the modernization theory served as the ruling ideology (Chung I-J 2003c, 2004).
The combination of three elements, that is, the inherent limitations of
anticommunism, the unconditional importation of theories from the United
States, and the hindrance of research by conservative groups that opposed
investigations into the modern and contemporary era, resulted in Korean
sociology being characterized by an ahistorical
approach until the 1970s (Kim J-K 1983). The emergence of the Yushin regime
during the 1970s provided the impetus for the formation of a new heterodoxy
within the Korean humanities and social sciences. Social history as a
discipline began in earnest in the late 1970s and emerged as a counterweight to
modernization theory and the structural-functionalist paradigm that dominated
the social sciences at the time. The Institute for Korean Social History,11 established in 1980,
set out to criticize the social theories that had been blindly imported into
Korea and establish a more critical and independent academic culture (Kim B.Y.
2011a). The Korean Social History Association exhibited characteristics
different from other academic organizations that were created primarily to
advance a progressive and reform-oriented academic agenda in the aftermath of
the Gwangju Uprising of 1980. By searching for concrete evidence (silsa gusi), the Korean Social History
Association wanted to indigenize the field of Korean sociology, which had
heretofore been dominated by non-national and ahistorical social science
discourses. In other words, the association’s aims were purely academic in that
it sought to develop historical sociology by putting sociology and history in
dialogue with each other; it purposively kept a safe distance from the
political upheavals that marked the 1980s.12
Research agendas in transition: Diversifying
or fragmentalizing?
The single most influential organization in
the social history branch of sociology at present is the Korean Social History
Association. The origins of the Institute for Korean Social History Association
can be traced back to a study group, the Institute for Korean Social History,
organized in April 1980 by Professor Shin Yong-Ha and graduate students from
the Department of Sociology at Seoul National University (Shin Y-H 2010; Kim
B-Y 2011a; Jung K-S 2013b). From the beginning, this group tried to employ
social history theories developed by scholars in Western Europe to Korea’s
reality. The members of the Institute for Korean Social History collectively
translated into Korean and published Social
History and Sociology (Shin Y-H 1982), and translated Philip Abrams’s Historical Sociology. From 1986, the
institute also began to publish its Collection
of Essays of the Institute for Korean Social History, fifty volumes of
which had been published by November 1996. These volumes included 279 papers
written by 155 different scholars.
According to Kim Pil-Dong’s quantitative study
of the papers included in the volumes, although researchers from various fields
(sociology, history, politics, anthropology, economics, and linguistics, among
others) had participated, an overwhelming number of researchers came from a
sociology background. In addition, a chronological analysis of the papers
revealed the most commonly addressed period as the Japanese colonial era (30
percent), followed by contemporary history after the 1960s (18.5 percent). In
terms of research subjects, the most popular were social movements and
political history, philosophy, ideology, and religion (18.5 percent), followed
by those related to state, nation, and political structure (16.4 percent). From
a diachronic standpoint, while volumes 1 to 21 published in the 1980s mainly
dealt with such topics as social movements, political history, and social
classes and strata, volumes 22 to 50 published in the 1990s featured a
significant number of studies on state, nation, political systems, philosophy,
ideology, and religion (Kim P-D 1997).
In another study, Park Myung-Kyu summarized
the changes that occurred in issues of Society
and History from 1995 to 2005. Park found that during this period there was
a marked decline in studies dealing with social movements, industrial labor,
and social strata and classes. He also detected a decrease in the number of
studies on the history of macro-institutions and policy, and a concurrent
increase in micro-studies. A rapid increase was found in studies related with
women, cultural history, and everyday life, and a relative increase was evident
in studies regarding religion and philosophy. And from a chronological
standpoint, interest in the contemporary era had greatly increased at the
expense of the Japanese colonial period that had constituted the most important
subject prior to 1997 (Park M-K 2006).
Recently, Kim Dong-No conducted a
comprehensive review of Korean social history articles (Kim D-N 2013).
Table 1. Relationship between subfields of historical sociology
and year of publication
|
Year of publication |
Subfield |
Total |
||||||||||
|
Politics |
Econo my |
Social move ments |
Theory/ method ology |
Social policy |
Family |
Organi zation |
Knowl edge/ culture |
Labor |
Popultion |
|||
|
1986 ~ 1989 |
Frequency (%) |
0 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
0.0% |
57.1% |
28.6% |
0.0% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
1990 ~ 1994 |
Frequency (%) |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
15 |
|
46.7% |
6.7% |
6.7% |
0.0% |
13.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
13.3% |
13.3% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
1995 ~ 1999 |
Frequency (%) |
9 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
22 |
|
40.9% |
18.2% |
22.7% |
4.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
2000 ~ 2004 |
Frequency (%) |
6 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
40.0% |
6.7% |
13.3% |
6.7% |
0.0% |
6.7% |
6.7% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
2005 ~ 2009 |
Frequency (%) |
8 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
44.4% |
5.6% |
16.7% |
5.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
27.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
2010 ~ 2013 |
Frequency (%) |
14 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
28 |
|
50.0% |
3.6% |
0.0% |
3.6% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
21.4% |
0.0% |
7.1% |
100.0% |
||
|
Total |
Frequency (%) |
44 |
12 |
13 |
4 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
17 |
3 |
2 |
105 |
|
41.9% |
11.4% |
12.4% |
3.8% |
6.7% |
1.0% |
1.9% |
16.2% |
2.9% |
1.9% |
100.0% |
||
Source: Kim D-N (2013, 84)
According to Table 1, except for the formative
stage from 1986 to 1989, interest in political sociology was strong. While from
the beginning of the twenty-first century, cultural sociology grew rapidly.
Table 2. Relationship between
historical-sociological research themes and year of publication
|
Year of publication |
Theme |
Total |
|||||||||
|
State |
Class |
Nation |
Economic development |
World system |
Modernity |
Culture, ideology |
Confucianism, religion |
Organiza tion |
|||
|
1986 ~ 1989 |
Frequency (%) |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
14.3% |
85.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
1990 ~ 1994 |
Frequency (%) |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
15 |
|
40.0% |
26.7% |
6.7% |
0.0% |
6.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
20.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
1995 ~ 1999 |
Frequency (%) |
7 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
22 |
|
31.8% |
13.6% |
9.1% |
9.1% |
9.1% |
4.5% |
13.6% |
4.5% |
4.5% |
100.0% |
||
|
2000 ~ 2004 |
Frequency (%) |
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
42.9% |
14.3% |
7.1% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
7.1% |
14.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
2005 ~ 2009 |
Frequency (%) |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
|
13.3% |
6.7% |
20.0% |
6.7% |
6.7% |
13.3% |
13.3% |
13.3% |
6.7% |
100.0% |
||
|
2010 ~ 2013 |
Frequency (%) |
16 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
61.5% |
0.0% |
11.5% |
0.0% |
3.8% |
3.8% |
19.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
||
|
Total |
Frequency (%) |
38 |
16 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
12 |
6 |
2 |
99 |
|
38.4% |
16.2% |
10.1% |
5.1% |
5.1% |
5.1% |
12.1% |
6.1% |
2.0% |
100.0% |
||
Source: Kim D-N (2013, 87)
According to Table 2, state (38.4 percent) and
nation (10.1 percent) combined make up half of the articles. Those categories
are not merely adequate and accurate, but also constitutive of social reality.
For example, the category “nation” is part of the historical and sociological
constitution of the object “nations” not only in the minds of scholars but also
in the consciousness of ordinary people. The categories with which we classify
the world are part of a social imaginary that in some degree also makes that
world real and makes it what it is (Taylor 2003).
Table 3. Research trends in Society and History, 1986–2009
|
Year of publication |
Number of articles (%) |
Unit of Analysis |
Period of Analysis |
|||||||
|
Korea |
International (comparative) |
Overseas |
Overseas Korean |
Pre- modern |
Late Joseon |
Colonial |
American military government |
Contemporary |
||
|
1986 |
26 |
22(85) |
2(8) |
0(0) |
2(8) |
5(19) |
4(15) |
10(38) |
0(0) |
7(27) |
|
1987 |
22 |
16(100) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
2(12) |
3(18) |
8(47) |
0(0) |
4(24) |
|
1988 |
30 |
21(91) |
0(0) |
1(4) |
0(4) |
5(20) |
1(4) |
6(24) |
6(24) |
7(28) |
|
1989 |
10 |
10(100) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
1(8) |
3(23) |
3(23) |
6(46) |
|
1990 |
56 |
41(91) |
0(0) |
3(7) |
1(2) |
3(7) |
2(5) |
11(26) |
3(7) |
23(55) |
|
1991 |
36 |
21(66) |
1(3) |
10(31) |
0(0) |
5(16) |
1(3) |
6(19) |
0(0) |
19(61) |
|
1992 |
30 |
25(89) |
3(11) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
1(4) |
1(4) |
9(32) |
1(4) |
16(57) |
|
1993 |
11 |
10(100) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
4(33) |
1(8) |
7(58) |
|
1994 |
21 |
15(71) |
4(19) |
1(5) |
1(5) |
4(20) |
2(10) |
3(15) |
0(0) |
11(55) |
|
1995 |
18 |
16(100) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
5(31) |
0(0) |
2(13) |
5(31) |
4(25) |
|
1996 |
20 |
12(60) |
2(10) |
1(5) |
5(25) |
5(22) |
5(22) |
3(13) |
0(0) |
10(43) |
|
1997 |
19 |
14(82) |
0(0) |
3(18) |
0(0) |
4(25) |
2(13) |
3(19) |
1(6) |
6(38) |
|
1998 |
15 |
11(92) |
0(0) |
1(8) |
0(0) |
3(23) |
1(8) |
4(31) |
1(8) |
4(30) |
|
1999 |
15 |
9(60) |
1(7) |
5(33) |
0(0) |
3(23) |
0(0) |
1(8) |
0(0) |
9(69) |
|
2000 |
15 |
13(87) |
1(7) |
1(7) |
0(0) |
1(6) |
1(6) |
5(31) |
1(6) |
8(50) |
|
2001 |
15 |
13(87) |
0(0) |
1(7) |
1(7) |
2(14) |
1(7) |
4(29) |
0(0) |
7(50) |
|
2002 |
15 |
14(93) |
1(7) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
2(13) |
2(13) |
6(40) |
0(0) |
5(33) |
|
2003 |
14 |
8(80) |
0(0) |
2(20) |
0(0) |
3(33) |
3(33) |
2(22) |
0(0) |
1(11) |
|
2004 |
20 |
18(90) |
0(0) |
1(5) |
1(5) |
1(6) |
1(6) |
7(39) |
0(0) |
9(50) |
|
2005 |
19 |
17(89) |
0(0) |
1(5) |
1(5) |
1(6) |
1(6) |
7(39) |
0(0) |
9(50) |
|
2006 |
33 |
22(71) |
4(13) |
5(16) |
0(0) |
4(13) |
3(10) |
10(33) |
0(0) |
13(43) |
|
2007 |
37 |
25(69) |
1(3) |
9(25) |
1(3) |
4(11) |
2(5) |
17(46) |
1(3) |
13(35) |
|
2008 |
31 |
26(87) |
0(0) |
4(13) |
0(0) |
2(7) |
0(0) |
10(33) |
1(3) |
17(57) |
|
2009 |
33 |
19(61) |
6(19) |
4(13) |
2(6) |
2(7) |
0(0) |
9(30) |
0(0) |
19(63) |
|
Total |
561 |
418(81) |
26(5) |
53(10) |
16(3) |
70(14) |
39(8) |
146(28) |
24(5) |
236(46) |
Source: Chae (2011a, 179)
Chae Ou-Byung’s review article solely on Society and History also reveals changes
in research trends. Chae analyzed trends based on five categories: macro/micro
history, social/cultural history, research subjects, unit of analysis, and
period of analysis. He found that from the mid-1990s onwards there was a noticeable
move away from the study of macro-history towards micro-history, as well as
from social history to cultural history. He also pointed out a shift from hard
history to soft history and from old social movements to movements conducted
via social media. As far as unit of analysis was concerned, Chae found that
although there was an overwhelming number of papers on Korea, the ratio of such
papers to the overall number of studies had nevertheless undergone a noticeable
decrease. Finally, in terms of analyzing certain eras, his study revealed that
while the number of studies on other periods had largely remained the same,
there had been a marked decrease in those dealing with the United States Army
Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) period (1945–1948). One interesting
aspect revealed in this study was when such changes in research trends became
evident. For instance, while changes affecting the study of social strata and
political economy began to surface in the early 1990s, those affecting the
remaining fields only became manifest in the mid-1990s (Chae 2011a). When we
look at Table 3, the unit of analysis is overwhelmingly that of the
(nation)-state, and the period of analysis is concentrated on the contemporary
and colonial era.
Every reviewer identified clear changes or
ruptures in research trends in the social history field around the mid-1990s.
Kim Dong-Choon, in particular, presented a powerful explanation regarding this
phenomena.
The 1980s can be
regarded as having been an era of belated revolution, which from the very
beginning was spurred on by the inherent limitations of introversion and selfcenteredness.
Rather than acquiescing to prevailing global trends, these researchers, [were]
buoyed by the internal experience known as the Gwangju Uprising of 1980. . . .
They failed to understand the great upheavals that were taking place from a
global standpoint, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and state socialism
in Eastern Europe, the Reagan Revolution in the United States, and the
information revolution, as well as the economic depression and the increasing
political ossification that overtook North Korea. As such, they were inevitably
confused by the rapid changes that took place during the early 1990s (Kim D-C
2005).
Although he himself is a well-known social
history-oriented progressive scholar, Kim criticized the methodological nationalism that centered research on “Korean
society,” a society identified as being within the boundaries of the “South
Korean nation-state.” He also pointed out the chronofetishism of so-called “progressive studies.” This is rather
ironic because the new critical academic trends that began to emerge from the
1980s, including those in social history, argued that we must “Bring History
Back In!” when analyzing Korean modernity. So, what went wrong?
A third wave of Korean social
history? A look at new trends on the horizon
The single event in contemporary Korean
history that impacted all first-generation scholars was the April uprising of
1960. This generation’s main research interest was the national independence
movement from the late Joseon dynasty and colonial period. They delved into the
national discourse in the modern and
contemporary era. Scholars of the second generation worked under the deep
shadow of the Gwangju uprising of 1980. Exploitation of the working class, as
well as political repression, were pressing issues at that time. These
second-generation scholars attempted to utilize class discourse in their research and showed great interest in
social movements, including not only student movements past and present, but
also political struggles against the dictatorial regimes of Korea’s past and
present, and class struggles against the capitalist system.13 They also extended
the time horizon into the colonial period.
When compared to first and second-generation
scholars, scholars of the third generation have very different historical and
social backgrounds. Even though they knew about the Gwangju massacre and
experienced South Korea’s repressive politics, and were acquainted with the
country’s exploitative economic system, they also lived through the democratic
transition and the rise of consumer culture. Furthermore, while still in their
twenties, this generation witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and
socialism in Eastern Europe, as well as the triumph of neoliberal capitalism
all around the globe. They had also developed a very keen sense of the
contradictions inherent the capitalist system and of the rapidly changing
balance of power in the region surrounding the Korean peninsula. This third
generation confronted modernity without ideological fantasies or dreams of
political engagement. I want to label this third generation of social history
scholars “the third wave,” distinguished from those who came before. This third
wave has revealed their capacity for combining historicity with globality,14 and has showed in-depth knowledge of the
materials stored in foreign archives in America, Japan, and China.
A brief review of the
publications by third-wave scholars: Emerging new research agendas
The third-wave scholars (who mainly received
their PhDs beginning in the early 2000s either in Korea or abroad) can actually
be divided into two groups according to research focus, and both groups have
published widely on issues of Korean modernity past and present. In one group
are researchers focused primarily on single topics or problems; and the second
group are researchers who are more theory and methodology oriented. The first
group includes Kang Sung Hyun, Kim Gwi-Ok, Kim Baek Yung, Kim Han Sang, Kim Soo
Jin, Kim In Soo, Park Jeong Mi, Seo Ho-Chul, Aelee Sohn, Chung Young Chul,
Jeong Young Sin, Chung Il-Joon, and Jung Joon Young. The second group includes
Kang Jin-Yeon, Kang Jin Woong, Baek SeoungWook, Cho Eunjoo, Chae Ou-Byung, and
Park Sang Hyun.
In the first group, Park Jeong Mi in
particular has published many excellent articles on the history of prostitution
and changes in how it has been regulated. She covers a long time-span from the
colonial period until the 1990s, and quite successfully explains changes in
policy towards sex workers. Her research topics include the succession of
colonial prostitution, policies related to sex workers during the Korean War and
after, sexual imperialism, and the “sexual tourism” that occurred in the
developmental era etc. (Park J.M. 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2014a, 2014b). Park
reveals the genealogy of prostitution in Korean modernity, and in doing so,
successfully combines gender studies with social history.
Sung Hyun Kang traces the genealogy of
National Security Law under Japanese colonial rule. He demonstrates that the
“Bodoyonmaeng Incident,” during which many innocent South Korean civilians were
massacred in the early phases of the Korean War, was not by accident, and that
it could be traced back to the thought control mechanisms installed in 1925.
Kang reveals how in Korean modernity the “usual state of exception” was
inscribed in the legal structure and how it has lasted until now (Kang S.H.
2012a, 2012b, 2014a, 2014b).
Whereas Park and Kang extend the time horizon
far into the colonial period and up to the present, Jeong Young Sin expands
spatial boundaries well beyond national territory. Jeong compares US military
bases in South Korea, Japan (Okinawa), and the Philippines. His comparative
historical approach makes it possible to see the formation of a regional
security network in East Asia well beyond the Korean peninsula ( Jeong Y.S.
2007, 2012). Jeong successfully combines the historical trajectories of each
nation-state with the global military presence of the United States.
Chung Il-Joon has written many articles and
book chapters on American liberal interventionism and the American
transformation of South Korea. He analyzes newly declassified US government
documents covering the period from the 1950s to the 1980s to ascertain general
US policy toward South Korea (Chung I-J 2002b, 2003b, 2006, 2009, 2010b, 2012).
Chung has dealt with a range of themes in his research, including the
imposition of the modernization theory upon academia and government in South
Korea; US intervention in critical events in contemporary Korean history
including the April Revolution of 1960 and the social movement of June 3, 1964;
the rise and demise of the Yushin regime; and the Gwangju uprising and
subsequent transition to democracy in 1987 (Chung I-J 1999, 2002a, 2003c, 2004,
2005, 2010c). He has also conducted comparative studies of South Korea and
South Vietnam on the topics of war and modernization; and of South Korea and
Taiwan on the transformation to a developmental state (Chung I-J 2003a, 2013).
These are situations where the US influence was strong. In these studies he
basically combines the social history of South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam with
diplomatic history and international relations theory.
Chung Young Chul has published widely about
North Korea, South-North relations, and North Korea-US relations and has also
dealt with such topics as nuclear issues, human right issues, and market reform
etc. (Chung Y.C. 2009, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Chung and Sohn 2014). In so doing,
he has demonstrated how South Korean modernity is deeply entangled with North
Korean modernity.
Many third-wave scholars have paid attention
to the colonial period, too: Jung Joon Young on the colonial legacy of the
imperial university system after liberation (Jung J.Y. 2009, 2013a, 2013b,
2014); Kim Baek Yung on the colonial city, as well as the railway and tourist
imperialism (Kim B.Y. 2009, 2011b, 2012, Kim and Cho 2014); Kim In Soo on the
intellectual history of In Jungsik (Kim I.S. 2012, 2013); Kim Soo Jin on new
women in colonial Korea and visual culture (Kim S. J. 2009, 2011); and Seo
HoChul on registration and colonial governmentality (Seo 2007, 2010; Park and Seo
2004).
However, Aelee Sohn occupies a unique position
even among these new-wave scholars. Sohn has studied the representation of the
concept of Guk along with that of
empire during the Joseon dynasty, and has also revealed ambivalent representations
of the king. She has front line knowledge on linguistic turns and combines such
theoretical insights with analyses of concrete historical documents written in
classic Chinese characters (Sohn 2011a, 2011b, 2012).
Kim Han Sang is another who occupies a unique
position in this group. His main research materials are US government agency
films; he has discovered many Korearelated film materials in the US National
Archives. Kim’s research has enlarged the terrain occupied by social history by
deftly combining within it cultural studies and film studies (Kim H.S. 2008,
2011, 2012, 2013).
Among the second group of scholars—i.e. those
focused on theory and methodology—Chae Ou-Byung has a prominent position. His
research has introduced new theoretical and methodological insights not only
into the field of sociology in South Korea but also into the historical
research going on in the country. Chae has dealt with such themes as
non-Western colonial structures and identity in colonial Korea, post-colonial
state culture in South Korea, and the cycle of empire and local political
culture (Chae 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2013).
Baek Seung-Wook has published many books and
articles on contemporary China. He has also shown a deep and comprehensive understanding
of Marxian social theory, especially Wallerstein’s world-systems theory (Baek
2001, 2007, 2008, 2012).
Park Sang Hyun has endeavored to capture the
characteristics of the modern capitalist world system and modern capitalist
state for many years. He has published one book and many articles on East Asia
and area studies from a world-systems perspective, as well as studies on
American modernity and comparative studies on the New Deal and Nazi Germany
(Park S.H. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). He has shown strong preference for
theoretical over concrete historical analysis, but he has been known to
occasionally apply his theoretical take to case studies. Similarly, Lee
Kwangkun prefers theory to case studies (Lee 2009, 2013). However, his theoretical
concerns are oriented to Korean modernity, I expect he will soon produce
concrete analysis of contemporary Korea.
Kang Jin-Yeon has shown talent for applying
comparative perspectives to concrete case studies. In particular, she succeeded
in combining historicity with globality in her article “Postcolonial State
Formation in Korea and the Cold War in Asia” (Kang J-Y 2012a, 2012b). Kang Jin
Woong for his part has published many articles on modern and contemporary
Korean history applying theoretical frames after the cultural turn (Kang J.W.
2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014). Recently Cho Eunjoo published many
interesting articles applying Foucauldian theme of ‘governmentality and
population’ on South Korean Family Planning Program (Cho E 2012, 2013,
2014a, b).
Some characteristics of the new
trends: Recasting nationalism and historical memory
Unlike first and second-generation social
history scholars who paid attention to historicity over globality, newly
emerging third-generation scholars are much more sensitive to the global
dimension. This is clear from their research topics, which explore both Japan
and Korea, or America and Korea, or global military arrangements and Korea, or
global capitalism and Korea etc. Furthermore their research materials are not
confined to Korean-language documents, but also include English, Japanese,
Chinese, etc. Just by surveying their topics it becomes immediately clear that
they have already overcome national boundaries and ahistorical approaches.
In this section I would like to recast the
concepts of nationalism and historical memory as new research agendas. Both
topics have to do with the making of new subjects, or citizens. Of course, these topics themselves are not new. But after
many “turns,”15
and in this era of globalization/individualization, I think it is worthwhile to
discuss them, “recast” them, from a new angle.
1)
Imagining New Korean
Nationalism: Nationalism as de-differentiation
Nationalism can be understood in terms of
models of integration which at the same time reflect global societal structures
of differentiation. Nationalism brought about a certain de-differentiation in
modernity. It persists because it allowed forms of social and system
integration to develop within the differentiated structures of modernity
(Delanty 2003). State formation is of course one of the major dynamics of
modernity. However, the nation form provides a different framework of social
integration. Though modernity has created an interstate system composed of
separate geopolitical units on the one hand, it has also, on the other,
produced homogeneity within these nation-states. One of the central projects of
the modern state has been making its members full citizens by endowing them
with certain rights and responsibilities. The control of the population is one
of the key functions of the state.16 Foucault presented his famous concept of governmentality through a series of lectures (Chung I-J 2010a).17 Governmentality is
more than social regulation. The state project is the regulation of populations
through the control of a whole range of areas concerning the social body, such
as poverty, health, education, and crime. In this sense, governmentality is
also about the actual constitution of the subject as an individual and a member
of the national polity. In order to achieve this object, the state project must
set about creating citizens. It is true that nationalistic ideas are often
dogmatic and strive to be hegemonic. They are nevertheless discursively
articulated. The idea of a nation must be imagined for it does not exist in a
concrete form that can be directly and immediately experienced. Intellectuals
have played a pivotal role in codifying the cognitive structures for imagining
the nation. In many countries, including Korea, the university has helped to
define national identity by promoting the national language(s), collecting
folklore, and codifying national literatures. Historians for their part play a
central role in writing the history of the nation. Here power and knowledge
come into contact. Korea is a divided country. Unfortunately, the state
structure and national form do not coincide. To make matters worse, in this era
of globalization and individualization, the tendency towards disenchantment,
that is, the loss of unified systems of meaning, and differentiation, in the
sense of utmost pluralization, undermines any form of integration. To reunify
Korea in the future, nationalism should be seen in terms of re-enchantment and
de-differentiation.
2)
Historical memory and
the constitution of the citizen: History as contested terrainHistorical memory
is collective memory and as such it presupposes the continuity of a
collectivity between past and present. So “remembering is re-membering.” This
collectivity reflects the elementary social bound and the basic idea of
sovereignty in present society. The connection between past and present
construed by historical memory differs in its relation to these two
temporalities. By seeing the past and present through the lens of the
affirmative and negative on the one hand, and continuity and discontinuity, on
the other hand, we can distinguish four different paradigms (Giesen and Junge
2003). The first dimension refers to the past. Historical memory can assume the
relation between present and past as continuity
that assures the dominant position of the past, or as discontinuity that devalues the past in relation to the present.
The second dimension centers the attitude on the present. Historical memory can
affirm the present in a triumphant way or it can conceive of it skeptically or
critically.
Borrowing this typology, we can discern in
Korea four ideal paradigms for approaching modernity.
|
|
|
Attitude on the present |
|
|
|
|
Affirmative |
Negative |
|
Relation between past and present |
Continuity |
1. Triumphalism |
3. Decline |
|
Discontinuity |
2. Progressivism |
4. Crisis |
|
The first, “triumphalism,” regards the present
as the triumphant repetition of, or return to, a glorious past that is seen as
the insuperable horizon. In North Korea, political legitimacy is predicated on
the founding father Kim Il-Sung’s anti-Japanese and anti-American National
Liberation Movement. The North Korean people are wrapped up in the sanctified
past. The past dominates the present in North Korea.
The second mode of connecting the present to
the past, “progressivism,” takes the opposite position. It considers the past
as the inferior predecessor of the present and pursues enlightenment and
progress. This model conceives of the present as a turning point in history
between the dark and repressive past behind us, and the bright and open future
ahead of us.
The third model, “decline,” reverses this
relationship between past and present. It assumes a decline and decadence
between a superior past and an inferior and decaying present. Faced with
apocalyptic horizons, only a radical return to natural roots and/or to
traditional virtues can prevent doom or even catastrophic breakdown.
The fourth and final model of relating past
and present, “crisis,” conceives of the present as a moment of crisis,
ambivalence, and decision. However, in contrast to the second and third models,
the future is here considered open and undecided. There is a heightened
awareness of the present as critical and requiring decisive action, but the
outcome is uncertain. Even the response to crisis is ambivalent. It can consist
of both fatalistic apathy as well as of a heightened sense of individual
responsibility.
In social and political struggles, discursive
action has the power of transforming a political constellation. It does so by
providing new justifications in our empirical contexts of situations that were
analyzed as problematic. Or in other words, a conceptual linguistic
transformation is created and proposed with a view to handling a new and
problematic situation (Wagner 2003). All relations between human beings and the
world are constituted by language. The experience of the world is linked to the
interpretation of the world. There is no “class” without the concept of class.
Thus, social history analyzes the use of language as an interpretative
intervention in the restructuring of problematic situations.
In South Korea we are virtually at war in our
understanding and interpretation of our past. Historical memory is a highly
contested terrain (Jung K-S 2013a; Kim D-H 2013b; Kim M.H. 2013, 2014). Through
making, remaking, and unmaking historical memory, social history has something
to contribute to the process of making and transforming Korean modernity.
Conclusion: Reflexive
modernization18 towards modernity
with Korean characteristics
In order to understand Korean modernity, we
should accept a new perception of space and time (Chung I-j 2007). From a
social historical point of view, we should take global (transnational and
international), national, and civil forces into consideration in analyzing and
interpreting Korean modernity. If we recognize multiple spaces, multilayered
temporalities19
and plural perspectives, we can find breakthroughs and pursue alternative
research agendas beyond the current fragmentations.
From the beginning, social history scholars in
the United States and Europe, whether they were Marxian, Weberian, Annales or
whatever else in their outlook, wrote articles and books on long-term
historical processes that took the formation of modernity as the key
problematic.20
They studied the defining events in the formation of modernity, such as the
transition from feudalism to capitalism, the formation of the modern state, the
class struggle, and revolutionary social movements. We have many reasons to
study history sociologically or to study social history. According to Calhoun,
there are three compelling reasons for why historical sociology has not been
exhausted (Calhoun 2003, 391). The first is that grasping social change continues
to demand both empirical interpretation and theoretical explanation. The second
is that avoiding false necessity is
still aided by both critical theory and comparative historical analysis.21 And the third is that
understanding how basic concepts work not only in our theories and analyses but
also in the social imaginary calls for never-ending investigation into the
histories of their production and transformation.
Many books with social historical/historical
sociological problematics have been published over the last fifteen years. Koo
Hagen’s studies on the Korean working class formation from a cultural as well
political perspective (Koo 2001); Shin Gi-Wook on Korean nationalism (Shin G-W
2006); Park Myoung-kyu on the conceptual history of nation, people, and citizen
(Park M-K 2009); Song Ho-Geun on the formation of the public sphere and the
constitution of the people and the citizen in the Joseon dynasty (Song
2012, 2013); Kim Soo Jin on the birth of “new women” in colonial Korea (Kim
S.J. 2009); and Kim Gwi-Ok’s two volumes of
oral history and memories of war (Kim G-O 2008, 2009), to name but a few.
Considering all these recently published
social history oriented books and many articles reviewed here, I do not believe
that social history in the South Korean academy is fragmented or in a decline.
If there have been gaps between social historical analysis and the real world
in the last decade, we should fix that problem collectively. Can there be any
kind of “post turn” in the social history of Korea without overcoming the
present bequeathed to us by the past? Modern means always the present,
presented to us, in real time and in situ.
Except for our determination to identify problems of our past and present and
exert our best efforts to solve these problems, what is the use of social
history at all and what does it mean for “Korean modernity”? Combining historicity with globality, or indigenizing (roots) by transcending (wings), we can
overcome methodological nationalism and ahistoricism. The task of “modernizing
modernization” or “reflexive modernization” is before us. That is the way
social history in South Korea can confront modernity and contribute to the
future. In other words, “What is past is just prologue.”
Notes
1.
Usually “social
history” is classified as a branch of history along with political history,
economic history, diplomatic history etc., while “historical sociology” has
risen lately as a new subfield of sociology in the United States. These two
concepts are usually used interchangeably. In this article I will use the
concept of social history and only occasionally use historical sociology. In
Korea, scholars seem to prefer social history over historical sociology. The
leading social history/historical sociology journal Society and History is published by The Korean Social History
Association. While Chae (2011a) reviewed the journal Society and History (1986–2009) singularly, more recently Kim D-N
(2013) included historical sociological articles published in the Korean Journal of Sociology in his
review.
2.
Reviewers generally
confine themselves to a particular journal, in this case it is Society and History. But the authors who
have contributed articles to this journal come from varied disciplinary
backgrounds (e.g. history, anthropology, economics, political science, gender
studies, cultural studies, literary criticism, traditional and modern social
thought, etc.). And in many cases, sociologists publish their social
history-oriented articles in other journals. Furthermore, focusing on articles
alone omits major books in the social history tradition. It is for this reason
that I think zeroing in on writers is a better approach. And in order to avoid
unnecessary misunderstandings, here I analyze only social history publications
belonging to sociology fields.
3.
Please see the
following in particular: Kim P-D (1990, 1995, 1997); Kong and Jung (2006); Park
M-K (2006); Chae (2011a); Kim B.Y. (2011a); Kim D-N (2013); Jung K-S (2013b).
4.
Chronofetishism is mistakenly
thinking that the present is just like the past, while tempocentrism is mistakenly thinking that the past is just like the
present. For example, if we think of China today as being just like it was at
the turn of the twentieth century or during the Cultural Revolution in the
1960s, then we are committing the error of chronofetishism.
On the other hand, if we assume that American global hegemony existed
before the Second World War, we have fallen into the trap of tempocentrism (Hobden and Hobson 2002).
Only hegemonic countries or people with triumphalist world views tend to be tempocentristic. Chronofetishism is a typical form of ahistoricism that has surfaced occasionally in (and out of)
academia.
5.
For an insider’s view
of the history of the Korean Social History Association, see Chi (2001), Jung
K-S (2013b), Shin Y-H (2010).
6.
The Korean
Sociological Association is the oldest and main organization in Sociology.
Founded in 1956 and published The Korean
Journal of Sociology since 1964. Please refer to the website of the Korean
Sociological Association (http://www.ksa21.or.kr).
7.
This journal began to
be published by the Korean Institute for Research on Industrial Society in the
same year of the institute’s establishment, 1984. The institute advocated
social reform through critical social scientific research of Korea, and was
devoted to progressive studies of contemporary Korean society. Many of the
institute’s researchers were not only from the field of sociology, but also
from the economics, politics, and history fields. Economy and Society featured research on such topics as industry
and labor, social classes and strata, and social movements. The institute was
renamed the Korean Industrial Sociological Association in 1996 and the Korean
Critical Sociological Association in 2007. Please refer to the website of the
Korean Critical Sociological Association (http://www. criso.or.kr).
8.
That said, the length
constraints in this article make it impossible to deal with the vast histories
of these two major sociological associations (the Korean Sociological Association
and the Korean Critical Sociological Association) in depth. What is important
for our purposes is that due attention be paid to other journals that have
published social historyoriented articles in order to avoid sampling errors.
And as a reviewer of this draft pointed out, I could also not delineate the
changes in research agendas of the second-generation scholars in detail. There
still remain many controversial issues over coloniality
and modernity and conflicting
perspectives on contemporary Korean history including the North Korean regime
etc. Exploring such controversies and conflicts is a daunting task that
deserves another lengthy review.
9.
Although Kim Pil-Dong
classified Yi Sang-baek and Kim Du-heon as first-generation social historians, I
count the second generation in his interpretation as the first. For
publications on first-generation scholars, see Lim and Chung (2012).
10.
Please see in
particular: Chi Sung-Jong (1995, 2001); Cho Sung Yoon (1982), Jun Sang-In
(2001, 2005); Jung Keun-Sik (2013a, 2013b;
Jung and Kong 1995; Jung et al. 2011); Kim Dong-Choon (1997, 2000a, 2000b,
2004, 2006, 2013a, 2013b); Kim Dong-No (2003a,
2003b, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2010, 2012,
2013); Kim Keong-il (1998, 2003, 2004, 2011; Kim et al. 2006); Kim Pil-Dong
(1990, 1995, 1997); Kim Yeong-Beom (1998a, 1998b, 1999); Lee Hye Sook (2008);
Park Myoung-Kyu (1985, 2006, 2008, 2009); Shin Gi-Wook (1996a, 1996b, 1998,
2006; Shin and Robinson 2001).
11.
The Institute for
Korean Social History is renamed to the Korean Social History Association from
1995. Please refer to the website of to the Korean Social History Association
(http://www.sociohistory.org).
12.
This is a marked
difference from the Korean Institute for Research on Industrial Society
(established, 1984; renamed in 2007), the publisher of Economy and Society.
13.
From the beginning,
there were some criticisms leveled against social history scholars, namely that
they “ran away” or “retreated” from history. That is, instead of confronting the
harsh political and economic realities of the 1980s, social historians paid
undue attention to a past that had no direct connection with the problems of
the present.
14.
Historicity is time dimension and
globality is space dimension in
conducting social research. Although all historical sociological research is a
study on concrete society located in timespace and dealing with social process,
researchers often make mistakes as if they are dealing with frozen and singled out social facts. See Abrams(1982) and Skocpol (1984).
15.
Here I am referring to
“historic turn,” “linguistic turn,” “cultural turn,” “post-colonial,”
“postmodern” and “post-Cold War” etc.
16.
The modern state has
many functions, of which permanent preparation for war, pursuance of entry into
world markets, and guaranteeing a certain level of social security are just a
few.
17.
By introducing the
perspective of liberal governmentality, we can transcend binary oppositions
like domination/resistance and/or capitalist development/critique. Moreover it
allows us to overcome lineal progressive perspectives such as “state formation–
industrialization–democratization–advancement.” This approach makes it possible
for us to analyze the vector of conflicting powers on the one hand, and to
trace the making and transformation of the nation-state with that of citizen as
subject on the other. From the comparative historical perspective, I argue that
in the process of tracing the making and transformation of modernity in South
Korea, the country lacked the maturity of liberal governmentality and rather
rushed into neo-liberal governmentality, which resulted in authoritarian
neo-liberal governmentality. The central problem confronting Korea is neither
the over/under-intervention of the state nor market tyranny or imperfection but
the underdevelopment of liberal governmentality. Criticism and resistance
cannot precede governing.
18.
On the concept of
“reflexive modernization,” see Lim and Chung (1999).
19.
In coining this
concept though I was inspired by Sewell’s article (Sewell 1999). However, my
theoretical position is very different from his. In my usage, not three
distinguishable temporalities but rather three overlapping temporalities form
not a linear time path from traditional to modern but rather multiple time
spans at the same time.
20.
For a comprehensive
review of American and European social history and historical sociology see
Adams, Clemens and Orloff (2005), Calhoun (1996), Delanty and Isin (2003), Kim
D-N (2003), Mahoney and Rueschemeyer (2003), Skocpol (1984), Smith (1991), and
Steinmetz (2005, 2007a, b).
21.
Calhoun (2003, 384)
points out that “along with comparison, attention to historical specificity is
one of the crucial ways of demonstrating that what happens to be is not what must be. . . . This has the effect
of exaggerating the extent to which present-day social arrangements are
necessary and thus beyond criticism as distinct from being the results of power
relations or failure to pursue alternatives. Seeing the present in relation to
the past is an important way of recognizing its contingency, and pressing oneself to attend not simply to surface
phenomena but also to underlying causes
and conditions that produce those phenomena.”(Italics added)
References
Abrams, Philip. 1982. Historical Sociology. Bath: Pitman Press.
Adams, Julia, Elizabeth Clemens, and Ann S.
Orloff, eds. 2005. Remaking Modernity:
Politics, History, and Sociology.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Baek, Seung-Wook [백승욱]. 2001. Chinese Workers
and Labor Policy [중국의 노동자와 노동 정책:
‘단위체제’의
해체]. Seoul: Munhakgwa Jisungsa [문학과지성사].
_____. 2007. Chinese Workers’ Politics of Memory: Focusing on memories during the
Cultural
Revolution [중국
노동자의 기억의 정치: 문화대혁명 시기의 기억을 중심으로]. Seoul: Politeia. _____. 2008. China on the frontier of Globalization [세계화의
경계에 선 중국]. Paju: Changbi
[창비].
_____. 2012. Chinese Cultural Revolution and Aporia of Politics [중국
문화대혁명과 정치의 아포리아]. Seoul: Greenbi [그린비].
Calhoun, Craig. 1996. “The Rise and
Domestication of Historical Sociology.” In The
Historic
Turn in the Human
Sciences, edited by Terence McDonald, 305-338. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
_____. 2003. “Afterword: Why Historical
Sociology?” In Handbook of Historical
Sociology, edited by G. Delanty and
E. F. Isin, 383-393. London: Sage.
Chae, Ou-Byung [채오병]. 2007a. “Non-Western Colonial Structure and Identity in
Colonial Korea.” [식민지
조선의 비서구 식민구조와 정체성.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 76:
299-333.
_____. 2007b. “From Positivism to Realism -
Transition of the Method in Historical Inquiry.” [실증주의에서 실재론으로: 역사연구 논리의 전환.]
Korean Journal of Sociology [한국사회학]
41 (5): 49-83.
_____. 2008. “Localization through
Globalization: Postcolonial State Culture in South
Korea.” [지구화를 통한 지역화: 남한의 탈식민국가문화.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회]
80: 224-247.
_____. 2009. “Epistemology and Methodology of
Eventful History.” [사건사의 인식론과 방법론.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 83: 157-185.
_____. 2011a. “Transition and Translation:
Historical Sociology of Korean Social History.”
[이행과 번역: 한국
사회사의 역사사회학.] Korean
Journal of Sociology [한국사회학]
45 (5): 168-96.
_____. 2011b. “Transition and Translation – A
Methodological Consideration on Understanding
Shadow Modernity.” [이행과 번역
– 한국사회의 근대성 이해를 위한 방법론적 소고.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회] 89: 46-70.
_____. 2012. “The Cycles of Empire and Local
Political Culture: Tong-a Ilbo’s Democracy
and Liberalism During the Inter-War Period.” [제국의
사이클과 지역 정치문화: 전간기 동아일보의 ‘민주주의’와 ‘자유주의’.] Society and History [사회와역사] 94: 173-216.
_____. 2013. “International Division of Labor
and Hollowing Out the Imperial Order:
Trajectory of the Crisis Discourse in South Korea.” [국제
노동분업과 국내 산업공동화: 제국질서와 위기담론의 궤적.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회] 98: 170-204.
Chi, Sung-Jong [지승종]. 1995. “Revive social history and Korean tradition.” [전통사회와 사회사연구.] Journal of Korean
Studies [한국학보] 21 (3): 29-65.
_____. 2001. “The academic condition and aim
of Korean Social History.” [한국사회사의 학 문적 상태와 지향.]
Paper presented at the 100th monthly conference of the Korean Social
History Association [한국사회사학회
제100회 월례발표회].
Cho, Eunjoo [조은주]. 2012. “Population and Governmentality: the Family Planning Program in South Korea.” [인구와 통치: 한국의 가족계획 사업.] PhD diss., Yonsei University.
_____. 2013. “Self-Perception
of the non-West and Historicism: the Family Planning
Program in South Korea.” [비서구의 자기인식과 역사주의: 한국의 가족계획 사업을 중심으로.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 98: 121-153.
_____. 2014a. “Naturalness of Population and
Technology of Government: Focusing on
the Relationship of Government-Science in the Family Planning Mothers’
Clubs.” [인구의 자연성과 통치 테크놀로지:
‘가족계획어머니회’를
둘러싼 통치-과학의 관계를 중심으로.] The
Korean
Journal of Humanities and the Social Sciences [현상과인식] Winter: 181-207.
_____. 2014b. “Population Statistics and State
Formation : The 1960 and 1966 Population
Censuses of the Republic of Korea.” [인구통계와 국가형성: 1960년,
1966년 한국의 인구센서스를 중심으로.] Korean Journal of Sociology [한국사회학] 48(5): 137-172.
Cho, Hyeong Guen [조형근]. 2003. “The flow of the colonial modernity research of Korea.”
[ 한국의
식민지근대성 연구의 흐름.] In Daily
life in the Colonial era: Domination and Rupture [식민지의
일상: 지배와 균열], edited by Jaewook Gong and Geunsik Jeong. Seoul:
Munhwagwahaksa [문화과학사].
Cho, Sung Yoon [조성윤]. 1982. Modern social
history theory and perception of history [현대 사회사 이론과 역사인식]. Seoul: Chunga Publishing Company [청아출판사].
Choi, Jai Seok [최재석]. 2009. The Study of
Korean Social History [한국사회사의 탐구].
Seoul:
Kyungin
munhwasa [경인문화사].
_____. 2011. Luck of Adversity [역경의 행운].
Seoul: Dameugi [다므기].
Chung, Il-Joon [정일준]. 1999. “From National Security State to Developmental State.”
[안보국가에서 발전국가로.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회] 42: 223-237.
_____. 2002a. “A Comparative Study of the
April 19th and June 3rd Social Movement:
Korean
Social Change and the Intervention of the US” [4·19와 6·3 사회운동의 비교연구.]
In Sociology of Diagnosis and Response [진단과
대응의 사회학], edited by Committee for
Professor Hosan Kim Kyeong-Dong’s Retirement
Memorial Book. Seoul: Bakyungsa
[박영사].
_____. 2002b. “US policy toward Korea during
the Syngman Rhee Regime, 1953-1960.”
[한국전쟁
이후 이승만 정권시기 미국의 대한정책, 1953~60.] Journal of Korean Studies [한국학보] 109: 193-223.
_____. 2003a. “War and Modernization: A
Comparative Study of South Korea and South
Vietnam, 1961-1965.” [전쟁과 근대화:
한국과 남베트남 비교, 1961∼1965.] In Sociology
of Labor and Development [노동과 발전의 사회학],
edited by the Korea Industrial Sociological Association [한국산업사회학회]. Seoul: Nanam [나남].
_____. 2003b. “Cold War Politics of the US and
Making Korean Friends: Focusing on the
O
rganization and Activities of the USIS during the 1950s & 1960s.” [미국의
냉전문화정치와 한국인 ‘친구 만들기’: 1950, 60년대 미공보원(USIS)의
조직과 활동을 중심으로.] In Americanized
Paradigm in Korean Academism [우리 학문 속의 미국: 미국적 학문 패러다임 이식에 대한 비판적 성찰], edited by Korea Progressive Academy Council [학술단체협의회]. Seoul: Hanul [한울].
_____. 2003c. “American Empire and Third World
Governance: Military-Industrial-
A
cademic Complex and the Making of a Modernization Theory.” [미제국의
제3세계 통치와 근대화 이론: 군산학복합체와 근대화이론의 탄생.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회] 57:
125-147.
_____. 2004. “America's Third World policy and
the modernization of South Korean Society
in the 1960s: Focusing on the institutionalization of the modernization
theory.” [미국의 제3세계정책과 1960년대 한국사회의 근대화.]
In Modernization and Intellectuals of
South Korea in the 1960s [1960년대 한국의 근대화와 지식인]. Seoul: Sunin [선인].
_____. 2005a. “ROK-US Relationships and Korean
Nationalism in the Global Era: Toward
Reflexive Nationalism.” [지구시대
한미관계와 한국민족주의: 성찰적 민족주의를 향하여.] The
Korean
History Education Review [역사교육] 94: 241-270.
_____. 2005b. “Americanization of the Social
Science Paradigm: The Dissemination of
M
odernization Theory and its Reception in South Korea.” [한국
사회과학 패러다임의 미국화: 미국 근대화론의 한국전파와 한국에서의 수용을
중심으로.] Journal
of American Studies [미국학논집]
37 (3): 66-92.
_____. 2006. “Antinomy of the Yushin System
and ROK-US Conflicts: National Security
without Democracy.” [유신체제의 모순과 한미갈등:
민주주의 없는 국가안보.] Society and History [사회와역사] 70: 149-178.
_____. 2007. “Understanding Modern &
Contemporary Korean History beyond Post-
Revisionism: Multiple Spaces, Multi-layered
Temporalities, and Plural Perspectives.”
[탈수정주의를
넘어서 한국 근현대사 이해하기: 공간의
다층성, 시폭의
중층성, 그리고 시각의 다원성.] Journal of Social
Research [한국사회] 8 (2): 55-112.
_____. 2009. “Historical Sociology of ROK-US
Relations: International Relations, State
Identity, and State Project.” [한미관계의
역사사회학: 국제관계, 국가정체성, 국가프로젝트.] Society and History
[사회와역사] 84: 217-261.
_____. 2010a. “Contemporary Korean History
from the Governmentality Perspective:
Criticizing the ‘87 regime’ and Reflecting on the Korean Social
Formation.” [통치성을 통해 본 한국 현대사:
87년체제론 비판과 한국의 사회구성 성찰.]
Democratic Society and Policy Studies [민주사회와정책연구] 17: 89-117.
_____. 2010b. “ROK-US Relations during the
Chun & Roh Regimes: Kwangju Uprising,
the Great June Struggle, and the Birth of the Sixth Republic.” [전두환·노태우 정권과 한미관계:
광주항쟁에서 6월항쟁을
거쳐 6공화국 등장까지.] Critical Review of
History [역사비평] 90: 296-332.
_____. 2010c. “April Revolution and America:
Political Change in South Korea and the
American Mode of Intervention.” [4월혁명과 미국: 한국 정치변동과 미국의 개입양식.]
In April Revolution and Korean Democracy [4월혁명과
한국 민주주의], edited by Korea Democracy Foundation, 341-392. Seoul: Sunin [선인].
_____. 2011a. “A Critique of Park Chung Hee’s
Developmental Dictatorship: Comparative
Historical Sociological Approach.” [박정희
정권기 개발독재 비판: 비교역사사회학적 접근.]
Critical
Review of History [역사비평] 95: 68-92.
_____. 2011b. “National Security and Liberty:
ROK-US Relations and Liberal Governmentality.”
[한국 현대사에서 안보와 자유:
한미관계와 자유주의 통치성.] In (Post) Cold War and Korean Democracy [(탈)냉전과 한국의 민주주의],
edited by Geunsik Jeong, 13-35, Seoul: Sunin [선인]. _____. 2012. “American Empire and the ROK: Beyond the ROK-US
Relationship.”
[미국제국과
한국: 한미관계를 넘어서.] Society and History
[사회와역사] 96: 113-150.
_____. 2013. “A Comparative Study of the
Transformation to a Developmental State in the
ROC & ROK.” [대만과 한국의 발전국가로의 전환 비교연구.] Society and History
[사회와역사] 100: 447-484.
Chung, Young Chul [정영철]. 2009. “The Application and Control of Market in North Korea:
Market
as Chicken Ribs.” [북한에서 시장의 활용과 통제: 계륵(鷄肋)의 시장.] North Korean Studies Review [현대북한연구] 12 (2): 98-135.
_____. 2012. “North Korea’s Cognition and
Policy toward South Korea in the Kim Jong-Il
Era.” [ 김정일 시대의 대암인식과 대남정책.]
Journal of Contemporary Politics [현대정치연구]
5 (2): 195-226.
_____. 2013a. “Division, Unification, and
Critical Sociology.” [김정일 리더십연구.]
Economy
and Society [경제와사회]
100: 161-82.
_____. 2013b. “The Nuclear Crisis and Peace
Regime of the Korean Peninsula.” [20년의 위기 : 북미
대결과 한반도.] Economy
and Society [경제와사회] 99: 63-91.
Chung, Young Chul and Ho Chul Sohn [정영철·손호철]. 2014. “The History
of Universal
Human
Rights and the North Korean Human Rights Issue.” [‘보편적’ 인권의 역사와 북한 인권 문제.]
Journal of Contemporary Politics [현대정치연구] 7 (1): 259-83.
Delanty, Gerard. 2003. “The Persistence of
Nationalism: Modernity and Discourses of the
Nation.” In Handbook of Historical Sociology, edited by G. Delanty and E. F.
Isin, 287-300.
London: Sage.
Giesen, Bernhard and Kay Junge. 2003.
“Historical Memory.” In Handbook of
Historical Sociology, edited by G.
Delanty and E. F. Isin, 326-336. London: Sage.
Hobden, Stephen and John M. Hobson, eds. 2002.
Historical Sociology of
International Relations. Cambridge
University Press.
Jeong, Young Sin [정영신]. 2007. “A Review on the Military Bases in Okinawa – Focusing
on the Historical Process of the
Construction, Expansion, and Return of the Military Bases in Okinawa.” [오키나와(沖繩)의
기지화·군사화에 관한 연구.] Society and History
[사회와역사]
73: 145-84.
_____. 2012. “The Formation of the Division
System and the Security Share Network in
East
Asia: An Methodological Approach on Postwar State-Making in East Asia.” [동아시아
분단체제와 안보분업구조의 형성.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 94: 5-48.
Jun, Sang-In [전상인]. 2001. Revisionism in
Decline: Historical Sociology of Contemporary
South Korean History [고개 숙인 수정주의:
한국 현대사의 역사사회학]. Seoul: Tradition
& Contemporary [전통과현대].
_____. 2005. “A Dialogue between Korean
Studies and Social Studies: Focusing on History and Sociology.” [한국학과
사회과학의 대화: 역사학과 사회학을 중심으로.] In 21st Century Korean Studies,
What shall we do? [21세기 한국학, 어떻게 할 것인가], edited by Yeong-woo Han [한영우]. Seoul: Blue History [푸른역사].
Jung, Joon Young [정준영]. 2009. “Keijo Imperial University and colonial hegemony.” [경성제국대학과 식민지 헤게모니.] PhD diss., Seoul National University.
_____. 2013a. “Adopting Academic Departments
in Universities of the Postcolonial Korea:
Historical-Sociological Analysis.” [해방 직후 대학사회 형성과 학문의 제도화: 학과제 도입의 역사사회학적 의미.]
Journal of Korean Modern and Contemporary
History [한국근현대사연구]
67: 41-87.
_____. 2013b. “The Repatriation of Professors
from Colonial Korea and Postwar Japanese
Society.”
[ 경성제국대학 교수들의 귀환과 전후 일본사회.] Society and History [사회와역사]
99: 75-119.
_____. 2014. “The Administrative System of
‘Industrial Promotion (Syokusan)’ and Colonial
Bureaucrats in the Government-General of Korea.” [조선총독부의 ‘식산’행정과
산업관료.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 102: 85-133.
Jung, Keun-Sik [정근식]. 2013a. “Trajectory of Social Memory Studies in Korea in the
Context of Multiple Transition and
Global History.” [한국에서의 사회적 기억 연구의 궤적.]
Journal of Democracy and Human Rights [민주주의와인권] 13 (2): 347-394.
_____. 2013b. “Achievement and Task of 30
years of Korean Social History.” [한국사회사학
30 년의
성과와 과제.] Paper presented at the symposium for
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Sociology Department of Korea
University [고려대
사회학과 창립
50주년 기념 심포지엄], October 31.
Jung, Keun-Sik and Jae-Wook Kong [정근식·공제욱]. 1995. “Contemporary
Korea and Social
History.” [한국 현대사회와 사회사연구.] Journal of Korean
Studies [한국학보] 21 (3): 99123.
Kang, Jin Woong [강진웅]. 2012a. “Diaspora and Contemporary Yanbian Korean-Chinese
Imagined Community: The Social Construction
and Reterritorialization of an Ethnic
Community.” [디아스포라와
현대 연변조선족의 상상된 공동체: 종족의 사회적 구성과 재영토화.] Korean Journal of
Sociology [한국사회학] 46 (4): 96-136.
_____. 2012b. “The Tradition of the
Anti-Japanese Guerrilla Struggle and the Making of
Nation
in North Korea: Nationalism as Power, Discourse, and Subject Making.” [북한의
항일무장투쟁 전통과 민족 만들기: 민족주의와 권력, 담론, 주체.] Korean Journal of
Sociology [한국사회학] 46(1): 24-63.
_____. 2013a. “The Epic of the Republic of
Korea’s Minjok: The Development of Ethnic
Nationalism and Its Faces.” [대한민국 민족 서사시: 종족적 민족주의의 전개와 그 다양한 얼굴.]
Korean Journal of Sociology [한국사회학] 47 (1): 185-219.
_____. 2013b. “North Korea's Bio-Politics and
Socialist Subject Making During the Period
of State Formation (1950s–1960s).” [1950-1960년대
국가형성기 북한의 생명정치와 사회주의 주체 형성.] Society and History [사회와역사] 98: 155-89.
_____. 2013c. “North Korean Women in the
Diaspora: Subaltern Women’s Lives and
Identity Politics.” [이산
속의 북한여성: 하위주체로서의 여성의 삶과 정체성의 정치.] The
Journal
of Asiatic Studies [아세아연구] 56 (2): 260-92.
_____. 2014. “State Research after the
Cultural Turn: State as an Ensemble of Reality and Imagination.” [ʻ문화적
전환ʼ 이후의 국가론: ʻ실재ʼ와 ʻ상상ʼ의
앙상블로서의 국가.] Korean
Journal
of Sociology [한국사회학] 48 (1): 173-204.
Kang, Jin-Yeon [강진연]. 2012a. “Rethinking Postcolonial State Building: Toward an
Integrative Approach.” [탈식민
국가형성 연구의 비판적 검토와 통합적 시각의 모색.] Korean
Journal
of Sociology [한국사회학] 46 (4): 233-63.
_____. 2012b. “Postcolonial State Formation in
Korea and the Cold War in East Asia.” [한국의 탈식민 국가형성과 동아시아 냉전체제.] Society and History [사회와역사] 94: 49-86.
Kang, Sung Hyun [강성현]. 2012a. “Thought control mechanism and Bodoyonmang
incident in Korea, 1925-50.” [한국
사상통제기제의 역사적 형성과 보도연맹 사건, 1925-50.] PhD diss.,
Seoul National University.
_____. 2012b. “A Study on the Legal Structure
of the ‘Usual State of Exception’ in the
Formative Period of South Korea: National Security Law (1948ㆍ1949ㆍ1950) and Martial Law
(1949).” [한국의 국가 형성기
‘예외상태 상례’의
법적 구조: 국가보안법(1948ㆍ1949ㆍ1950)과 계엄법(1949)을
중심으로.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 94: 87-128.
_____. 2014a. “Issues and Criticism of the
‘Reconstruction of Truth’ About the Sewol Ferry
Disaster and Past Events.” [과거사와 세월호 참사 진상규명을 둘러싼
쟁점과 평가.] Critical
Review of History [역사비평]
109: 62-93.
_____. 2014b. “Management of the Legal Structure
of Preventive Custody and its Results
During
the Korean War.” [한국전쟁기 예비검속의 법적 구조와 운용 및 결과.] Society and History [사회와역사] 103: 7-53.
Kim, Baek Yung [김백영]. 2009. Domination and
Space: The Colonial City of Gyeongseong
a nd Imperial Japan [지배와 공간 식민지도시 경성과 제국 일본]. Seoul: Munhakgwa jisungsa
[문학과지성사].
_____. 2011a. “Korean Studies between the
Social Sciences and Historical Studies: Debates
over Modern and Contemporary Korean History.” Korea Journal 51 (3): 105-139. _____. 2011b. “Colonial Power and
the Square Space.” [식민권력과 광장공간.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 90: 271-311.
_____. 2012. “Periodical Characteristics of
the Colonial Modern Urbanization of Suwon.”
[일제하 식민지도시 수원의 시기별 성격 변화.] Korean Journal of Urban
History [도시연구]
(8): 7-48.
_____. 2013. “Spatial Sociological Analyses on
4·19 and 5·16: Spatial Focusing on Politics of
Public
Space in Seoul.” [4·19와
5·16의 공간사회학: 1950~60년대
서울의 도시공간과 광장정치.] Seogang
Humanities Research Institute Journal [서강인문논총] 38: 85-118. _____. 2014. “Railway Imperialism and Tourist
Colonialism: A Theoretical Review of
Studies on the Colonial Tourism of the Japanese Empire.” [철도제국주의와
관광식민주의:
제국 일본의 식민지 철도관광에 대한 이론.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 102: 195-230. Kim, Baek Yung and Jung Woo Cho [김백영·조정우]. 2014. “The Official
Travel Routes and Guidebooks of the
Japanese Empire for Colonial Korea and Manchuria.” [제국
일본의 선만(鮮滿) 공식 관광루트와 관광안내서.]
Journal of Japanese History [일본역사연구] 39: 27-
64.
Kim, Dong-Choon [김동춘]. 1997. Division and
Korean Society [분단과 한국사회].
Seoul: Yuksabipyungsa [역사비평사].
_____. 2000a. War and Society [전쟁과 사회:
우리에게 한국전쟁은 무엇이었나?]. Paju: Dolbaegae
[돌베개].
_____. 2000b. Shadow of Modernity: Korean Modernity and Nationalism [근대의
그늘: 한국의 근대성과 민족주의].
Seoul: Dangdae [당대].
_____. 2004. America’s Engine: War and Market [미국의 엔진: 전쟁과 시장]. Seoul: Changbi
[창비].
_____. 2005. “The Characteristics of the
Debates on Korean Society in the 1980s as Viewed from the 21st Century.” In The Social Sciences Debates in the 1980s as
Viewed from the 21st Century [21세기에 돌아보는 80년대 한국사회 성격논쟁].
Papers presented at the forum on the reunification of the Korean peninsula,
Seoul National University.
_____. 2006. Reflections on Korean Society after 1997 [1997년
이후 한국사회의 성찰: 기업사회로의 변환과 과제]. Seoul: Gil [길].
_____. 2013a. War Politics: Mechanism of Korean Politics and State Violence [전쟁정치: 한국정치의
메커니즘과 국가폭력]. Seoul: Gil [길].
_____. 2013b. This is a War against Memory: Korean War and Massacre, Searching for
the Truth
[이것은
기억과의 전쟁이다: 한국전쟁과 학살, 그 진실을 찾아서].
Paju: Sagyegeol [사계절].
Kim, Dong-No [김동노]. 2003. “From Macro-Structural Theories to Micro-Event Analyses
–
Trends and Tasks of American Historical
Sociology.” [거시 구조 이론에서 미시 사건사로미국 역사사회학의 경향과 과제.] Society and History [사회와역사] 63: 86-122.
_____. 2006. The Formation of the Ruling System in the Japanese Colonial Period
[일제 식민지
시기의 통치체제 형성]. Seoul: Hyean
Publishers [혜안].
_____. 2007a. “Colonial Modernity and
Transformation of the Peasant Movement During
the Colonial Period.” [일제시대 식민지 근대화와 농민운동의 전환.] Korean Journal of
Sociology [한국사회학] 41 (1): 194-220.
_____. 2007b. “Pannong Panno: The Modern
Transformation of Peasant Movements and
the Emergence of Labor Disputes during the Colonial Period in Korea.” [반농반노: 일제시대 농민운동의 근대적 전환과 노동운동의 형성.] The Korean Journal of
Humanities and the Social Sciences [현상과인식] 31 (4): 13-32.
_____. 2009. Prelude of Modernity and Colonization [근대와
식민의 서곡]. Paju: Changbi Publishers [창작과 비평사].
_____. 2010. “Nationalism and Political
Strategy of Korean Political Leaders: A Comparison of Park Chung-Hee and Kim Dae-Jung.” [한국의
국가 통치전략으로서의 민족주의.] The
Korean
Journal of Humanities and the Social Sciences [현상과인식] 34 (3): 203-24.
_____. 2012. “Dynamics of State-Society
Relations: Reconsidering State Autonomy and
State Capacity.” [국가와 사회의 권력관계의 양면성: 국가 자율성과 국가 역량의 재검토.]
Society
and History [사회와역사] 96: 261-92.
_____. 2013. “From Macro-Structural Theories
to Event Analyses, and the Return to Macro
Theories: Trends in Historical Sociology and
an Alternative Path of Development in the
Future.” [거시이론에서
사건사로, 그리고 다시 거시이론으로?: 역사사회학의 연구 경향과 새로운 길의 탐색.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 100: 73-102.
Kim, Gwi-Ok [김귀옥]. 2008. Memory of War,
Oral Statement of the Cold War [전쟁의 기억 냉전의 구술]. Seoul: Sunin [선인].
_____. 2009. War and society and East Asia [동아시아의 전쟁과 사회]. Paju: Hanul [한울].
Kim, Han Sang [김한상]. 2008. “Research on the Idea of Film Nationality and the
Institutionalization of the History of Korean
National Cinema: Focusing on Research
Documents and Classification Systems.” [영화의
국적 관념과 국가영화사의 제도화 연구.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 80: 257-86.
_____. 2011. “US Film Propaganda in South
Korea, 1945-48: A Study on Film Materials
Discovered in the US National Archives.” [1945-48년
주한미군정 및 주한미군사령부의 영화선전.] The Korean Journal of American History [미국사연구] 34:177-212.
_____. 2012. “(Re)Presentations and Discourses
in USIS-Korea Film Propaganda: The
Rehabilitated Self in Rebuilding the Nation in the 1950s.” [주한미국공보원(USIS) 영화선전의 표상과 담론.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 95: 243-79.
_____. 2013. “The Mechanism of Gaze in USIS
Film Propaganda in South Korea.”
[주한미국공보원(USIS) 영화의 응시 메커니즘.]
Critical Studies on Modern Korean History
[역사문제연구] 30: 167-201.
Kim, In Soo [김인수]. 2012. “Imperial/Colonial Theoretical Chains and Conversion:
Focused on In Jungsik’s Economic
Theory.” [이론연쇄(理論連鎖)와 전향(轉向): 인정식(印貞植)의 경제론을 중심으로.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 96: 71-112.
_____. 2013. “The Critics on Social Science of
Colonial Korea in the Total War Period
(1937~1945): Concerning the ‘Comparison Methodology’ of In Jeongsik.” [총력전기
식민지 조선의 사회과학 비판: 인정식의 비교에 관한 소고.] The Journal of Asiatic
Studies [아세아연구] 56 (4): 71-103.
Kim,
Jin-Kyoon [김진균]. 1983. “Korean
Sociology, The Character of Ahistoricity.” [한국사회학, 그 몰역사성의 성격.]
A Study of Korean Society 1 [한국사회연구 1]. Seoul: Hangilsa [한길사]. _____. 1997. Social
Reality and the Academic World in Korea [한국의 사회현실과 학문의 과제]. Seoul: Munhwagwahaksa [문화과학사].
Kim, Jin-Kyoon and Keun-Sik Jung, eds. [김진균·정근식 편]. 1997. A Modern Subject and Colonial
Disciplinary Power
[근대주체와 식민지 규율권력]. Seoul:
Munhwagwahaksa [문화과학사]. Kim, Keong-il [김경일]. 1998. “The Formation and the Development of Area Studies in
the United States.” [전후
미국에서 지역연구의 성립과 발전.] Area
Studies [지역연구] 5 (3) : 223-268
_____. 2003a. “The Origin of Studies and
Genealogy: South Korea and East Asia, Centered
on the United States.” [한국학의 기원과 계보:
한국과 동아시아, 미국을
중심으로.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 64: 129-165.
_____. 2003b.Kim, Keong-il [김경일]. 2003. Modern Korea and
Modernity [한국의 근대와 근대성].
Seoul: Baeksanseodang [백산서당].
_____. 2004. Modern Korean Labor History and Labor Movement [한국
근대 노동사와 노동 운동]. Seoul: Munhakgwa jisungsa [문학과지성사].
_____. 2011. The Era of Empire and East Asian Solidarity [제국의
시대와 동아시아 연대]. Paju:
Changbi Publishers [창작과 비평사].
Kim, Keong-il et al. [김경일
외]. Our
Inner Universality: A New Seeking of Subjectivation of Study [우리 안의 보편성: 학문 주체화의 새로운 모색].
Paju: Hanwool[한울]
Kim, Kyung-Dong [김경동]. 2006. “Korean Sociology in this Age of Drastic Change:
Reflections on 50 Years of Korean Sociology.”
[격변하는 시대에 한국사회학의 역사적 사명을 묻는다:
한국사회학 50년의
회고.] Korean
Journal of Sociology [한국사회학]
40 (4): 1-18.
Kim, Min Hwan [김민환]. 2014. “Contested Memories in the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park:
The
‘Absent Presence’ of the Riot Interpretation and Solidarity Spilt.” [전장(戰場)이
된 제주4·3평화공원: 폭동론의 ‘아른거림(absent presence)’과 분열된 연대.] Economy and Society [경제와사회] 102: 74-109.
_____. 2013. “The Overdetermination of Center
and the Periphery of East Asia in Songs
and the Peace Commemoration Park.” [중심과 주변의 중층성: 노래와 평화기념공원으로 본 동아시아.]
Society and History [사회와역사] 97: 77-104.
Kim, Pil-Dong [김필동]. 1990. “The achievement and task of recent Korean social
history:
Methodological self-reflection.” [최근 한국사회사 연구의 성과와 과제: 방법론적 반성.] Korean Social History
Association Journal [한국사회사연구회 논문집]
24: 11-43.
_____. 1995. “The Development of 'Korean
Social History'.” [해방후 한국사회사연구의 전개.]
Journal of Korean Studies [한국학보] 21 (3): 2-28.
_____. 1997. “Finding a new way of academic
research to connect society and history – The
academic achievement of the Korean Social History Association Journal.”
[사회와 역사를 잇는 학문적 탐구의 새 길을 찾아서-한국사회사학회논문집의
학문적 성과.] Culture
and
Society
[문학과사회] 10 (1): 349-363.
Kim, Soo Jin [김수진]. 2007. “Reading the Transformations of Women’s Clothes in
Postcolonial
Korea:
Gender Politics of Tradition and Modernity.” [여성의복의 변천을 통해 본 전통과
근대의 젠더정치: 해방 이후~1960년대 초반을 중심으로.]
Journal of Feminism Studies [페미니즘연구] 7 (2): 281-320.
_____. 2008. “‘The Invention of Tradition’ and
the Nationalization of Women in Postcolonial
Korea:
Making Shin Saimdang an Image of ‘Good Mother-Good Wife’.” [전통의
창안과 여성의 국민화: 신사임당을 중심으로.] Society and History [사회와역사] 80: 215-55. _____. 2009. Excess
of the Modern: The New Woman in Colonial Korea, 1920-1934 [신여성, 근대의
과잉: 식민지 조선의 신여성 담론과 젠더정치, 120-1934]. Seoul: Somyung Press
[소명출판사].
_____. 2011. “The Self-Commemoration and
Visual Propaganda of a Colonial Power: A
Study of a Collection of Photographs
Commemorating the Chosen Shrine’s Anniversary,
Eunroi.” [식민
권력의 자기 기념과 시각적 선전: 조선신궁기념사진집 『은뢰(恩賴)』를
중심으로.] Society
and History [사회와역사] 89: 117-64.
Kim, Yeong-Beom [김영범]. 1998a. “Historie des mentalités.” [망탈리테사: 심층사의 한 지평.] Korean
Social History Association Journal [한국사회사연구회 논문집] 31: 258-335.
_____. 1998b. “Social historical prospect and
dynamics of collective memories.” [집합기억의 사 회사적 지평과 동학.] In Theory and reality
of social history research [사회사연구의 이론과 실제],
edited by The Academy of Korean Studies [한국정신문화연구원].
______. 1999. “A Study on Maurice Halbwachs'
Sociology of Memory.” [알박스(Maur ice Halbwachs)의
기억사회학 연구.] Journal
of Social Science Research [사회과학연구]
6 (3): 557-594.
Knöbl, Wolfgang. 2003. “Theories That Won’t
Pass Away.” In Handbook of Historical
Sociology, edited by G. Delanty
& E. F. Isin, 96-107. London: Sage.
Kong, Jae-Wook and Keun-Sik Jung, eds. [공제욱·정근식 편]. 2006. Daily Life in the Colonial
Era: Domination and Rupture
[식민지의 일상: 지배와 균열]. Seoul:
Munhwagwahaksa [문화과학사].
Koo, Hagen. 2001. Korean Workers: The Culture and Politics of Class Formation.
Cornell University Press.
Korea Progressive Academy Council, ed. 1998. The present and future of Korean humanities
and social sciences [한국인문사회과학의
현재와 미래]. Seoul: Prunsoop [푸른숲].
_____. 2003. The United States in Our
Studies: A Critical Reflection on the Transplant of the
American Academic
Paradigm [우리 학문 속의 미국: 미국적 학문 패러다임 이식에 대한 비판적 성찰]. Seoul: Hanwool [한울].
Korean Sociological Association [한국사회학회]. 2007. Korean
Sociological Association:
1957~2007
[한국사회학회 50년사 1957-2007]. Seoul:
Hanhakmunhwa [한학문화].
Lee, Hye Sook [이혜숙]. 2008. Governing
Structure of American Military Government over South
Korean Society:
Historical Structuring of State-Civil Society Relation after Liberation [미군정기 지배구조와 한국사회:
해방 이후 국가-시민사회
관계의 역사적 구조화]. Seoul: Sunin [선인].
Lee, Kwangkun [이광근]. 2009. “Towards a Reformulation of Core/Periphery
Relationship:
A
Critical Reappraisal of the Trimodality of the Capitalist World-Economy in the
Early 21stCentury” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 8 (2009):
263-94.
______. 2013. “The Structuration of the
Capitalist World-Economy and a National Regime:
An
Actor-Oriented World-Systems Approach.” [자본주의 세계경제와 일국적 체제의 구조화 - 행위자 지향적 세계체계 분석.]
Korean Journal of Sociology [한국사회학] 47 (2): 349-80.
Lim, Hyun-Chin and Il Joon Chung [임현진·정일준]. 1999. “Korea’s
developmental experience and reflexive
modernization.” [한국의 발전경험과 성찰적 근대화.]
Economy and Society [경제와사회] 41: 123-151.
_____. 2012. “Korean Studies in Sociology: In
Search of a Strategy for Globalizing Korean
Studies.” [사회학에서의 한국학 연구동향:
한국학의 세계화 전략 모색.] Research Journal of Korean Studies [한국학연구] 43: 461-494.
Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich,
eds. 2003. Comparative Historical
Analysis in Social Sciences.
Cambridge University Press.
Park Myoung-kyu [박명규]. 1985. “Research in Korean Social History: Observations of
Research Products over the Past 40 Years.” [한국사회사연구 40년: 사회학계의
연구성과를 중심으로.] Korean
Journal of Sociology [한국사회학]
19: 27-48.
_____. 2006. “Recent trends in the Study of
Korean Social History and Theoretical Debates.”
[한국사회사연구의 최근 동향과 이론적 쟁점.] Critical Review of
History [역사비평] 75: 76-
91.
_____. 2008. “The Semantic Structure and
Political Orientation of the National Discourses in Korea.” Korean Culture [한국문화]
41: 245-262.
_____. 2009. Nation, People and Citizen: Korean Political Subjectivities from
Conceptual History
[국민·인민·시민: 개념사로 본 한국의 정치주체].
Seoul: Sohwa [소화].
Park Myoung-kyu and Ho-chul Seo [박명규·서호철]. 2004. Colonial Authority and Statistics: The Statistics System of the Joseon
Government-General and its Censuses [식민권력과 통계: 조선총독부의통계체계와 센서스].
Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Park Myoung-kyu and Kyung-il Kim [박명규·김경일]. 1995. “Trends in
Social History Research on Modern Korea
(1876∼1945).” [한국
근대사회와 사회사연구.] Journal
of Korean Studies [한국학보]
21 (3): 66-98.
Park, Myoung-kyu, Keun-Sik Jung, Joon Young
Jung, Jin-sung Jeong, and Jung Woo Cho
[박명규·정근식·정준영·정진성·조정우]. 2011. Colonial power and modern knowledge: A study
on Keijo Imperial University [식민권력과 근대지식: 경성제국대학 연구].
Seoul: Seoul
National University Press.
Park, Jeong-Mi [박정미]. 2011a. “The Rupture and Succession of the Colonial
Prostitution
Institution in Korea: The Transformation and
Reproduction of the ‘Toleration-Regulation
Regime’.”
[식민지 성매매제도의 단절과 연속: ‘묵인-관리 체제’의 변형과 재생산.]
Journal of
Feminism
Studies [페미니즘연구] 11 (2): 199-238.
_____. 2011b. “A Study on Prostitution
Policies during the Korean War: Focusing on
‘Comfort Stations’ and ‘Comfort Women’.” [한국전쟁기 성매매정책에 관한
연구: ‘위안소’와 ‘위안부’를 중심으로.] Journal of Korean Women’s Studies [한국여성학] 27 (2): 35-72.
_____. 2012. “‘Woman Free from Habitual
Debauchery?’: Criminal Law, Postcoloniality,
and Women’s Sexuality, 1953-1960.” [“음행의 상습 없는 부녀”란 누구인가?: 형법, 포스트식민성, 여성
섹슈얼리티, 1953~1960년.] Society and History [사회와역사] 94: 261-95.
_____. 2014a. “Sexual Imperialism, National
Tradition, and the Silence of the Kisaeng: The
Politics of Representation in the Anti-Kisaeng Tourism Campaign,
1973-1988.” [성 제국주의, 민족
전통, 그리고 ‘기생’의
침묵 : ‘기생관광’ 반대운동의 재현 정치,
1973~1988년.]
Society
and History [사회와역사] 101: 405-38.
_____. 2014b. “Development and Sex: The
Prostitution Tourism Policy of the Korean
Government, 1953-1988.” [발전과
섹스: 한국 정부의 성매매관광정책, 1955-1988년.]
Korean
Journal of Sociology [한국사회학] 48 (1): 235-64.
Park, Sang Hyun [박상현]. 2010. “Two Roads of Capitalist State Making in the 20th
Century:
Comparative Historical Analysis on Nazis and the New Deal.” [20세기
자본주의 국가 형성의 두 가지 길: 나치와 뉴딜의 비교를 중심으로.] Society and History
[사회와역사] 88:
423-66.
_____. 2011. “East Asia and World-System
Analysis: Issues and Prospects.” [동아시아와 세계체계
연구: 쟁점과 전망.] Society and History
[사회와역사] 92: 93-129.
_____. 2012. Neoliberalism and the Change of Modern Capitalist State: Focusing on
the US as World Hegemony [신자유주의와
현대 자본주의 국가의 변화]. Seoul: Baeksanseodang [백산서당].
_____. 2013. “American Context of
Developmentalism in the Twentieth Century: Focusing on the Rise and Demise of American
Modernity.” [20세기 발전주의의 미국적 맥락
: 미국적 현대성의 성쇠를 중심으로.] Society and History [사회와역사] 100: 413-46.
_____. 2014. “World-System and Area Studies:
An East Asia Perspective.” [세계체계와 지역연구:
‘동아시아’의
관점에서.] The
Journal of Asiatic Studies [아세아연구]
57 (4): 7-39.
Seo, Ho-Chul [서호철]. 2007a. “Registration of people and emergence of
governmentality in
Korea,
1890s to 1930s.” [1890-1930년대 주민등록제도와 근대적 통치성의 형성: 호적제도의 변용과 ‘내무행정’을 중심으로.] PhD diss., Seoul
National University.
_____. 2007b. “Population and Governing in the
Late Joseon Dynasty: A Study on Heonminsu
Record
in Ilseoungrok.” [조선 후기의 인구와 통치:
『일성록』 ‘헌민수’ 자료의 검토.] Society and History [사회와역사] 74: 215-50.
_____. 2007c. “Statistical Regularities and
Sociological Explanation: A Study on Quetelet’s
Moral
Statistics.” [통계적 규칙성과 사회학적 설명:
케틀레의 ‘도덕통계’와 그 영향을 중심으로.]
Korean Journal of Sociology [한국사회학] 41 (5): 284-318.
_____. 2008. “Self-Identity as Discordance
between Nation-Imagination and Citizenship.”
[국민/민족
상상과 시민권의 차질, 차질로서의 자기정체성.] Journal of Korean
Culture [한국문화] 41: 85-112.
_____. 2010. “The Genealogy of the Kyae
Uproars: Introduction of the Mutual Fund in the
Colonial Period.” [‘계 파동’의
계보: 식민지기 윤번제 상호금융의 도입과 명암.] Society and History [사회와역사] 88: 5-37.
_____. 2011. “Formation of Cross-Border
Marriage Brokerage in Korea: Historical
Momentums.” [국제결혼 중개장치의 형성:
몇 가지 역사적 계기들.] Society and History [사회와역사] 91: 99-131.
Sewell Jr., William H. 1999. “Chapter 3, Three
Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.”
In Logics of History: Social Theory and Social
Transformation, 81-123. The University of Chicago Press.
Shin, Gi-Wook [신기욱]. 1996a. “South Korean Anti-Americanism: A Comparative
Perspective.” Asian Survey 36 (8): 787-803.
_____. 1996b. Peasant Protest & Social Change in Colonial Korea. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
_____. 1998. “Agrarian Conflict and the
Origins of Korean Capitalism 1.” American
Journal of Sociology 103 (5):
1309-51.
_____. 2006. Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Shin, Gi-Wook and Michael Edson Robinson, eds.
2001. Colonial Modernity in Korea. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Shin, Yong-Ha [신용하]. 1994. “Suggestions for the development of creative Korean
sociology.” [독창적
한국 사회학의 발전을 위한 제언.] Korean
Journal of Sociology [한국사회학]
28
(spring): 1-12.
_____.
2010. “The way and direction of Korean social history study: A retrospect of
the foundation of the Korean Social History
Association.” [한국사회사 연구의 방법과 방향:
한국사회사학회 창립의 회고.] Paper presented at
the 30th anniversary workshop of the
Korean Social History Association [한국사회사학회
창립 30주년 기념 워크샵 발표문].
Shin, Yong-Ha, ed. [신용하
편]. 1982. Social
History and Sociology [사회사와 사회학].
Seoul:
Changbi
Publishers [창작과 비평사].
Skocpol, Theda, ed. 1984. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, Dennis. 1991. The Rise of Historical Sociology. Temple University Press.
Sohn, Aelee [손애리]. 2011a. “Between Civilization and Empire: Chosun Intellectual-
Bureaucrats’ Representation of Guk (國)’ in the Reign of King Injo (仁祖).” [문명과 제국 사이:
병자호란 전후시기 주화·척화논쟁을
통해 본 조선 지식관료층의‘國’표상.] The Review of
Korean
and Asian Political Thoughts [한국동양정치사상사연구] 10 (2): 45-67.
_____. 2011b. “A Study on
Intellectual-Bureaucrats’ Idea of Cheongt’ung (正統) in the 17th Century.” [
인조대 전례논쟁을 통해 본 17세기
전반 조선 지식관료층의 정통(正統) 관념.]
Society
and History [사회와역사] 89: 167-92.
_____. 2012. “The Ambivalent Representation of
the King in the First Half of the 17th-
Century Chosun Dynasty.” [조선시대
왕의 이중적 재현: 인조대를 중심으로.] Research
Journal of Korean Studies [한국학연구]
40: 93-118.
Song, Ho-Geun [송호근]. 2012. The Birth of the
People [인민의 탄생: 공론장의
구조변동].
Seoul: Mineumsa [민음사].
_____. 2013. The Birth of the Citizen [시민의 탄생: 조선의 근대와 공론장의 지각변동].
Seoul: Mineumsa [민음사].
Steinmetz, George. 2005. “The Epistemological
Unconscious of U.S. Sociology and the
Transition to Post-Fordism: The Case of Historical Sociology.” In Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and
Sociology edited by Adams, Julia, Elizabeth Clemens, and Ann S. Orloff,
109-160. Durham: Duke University Press.
_____. 2007a. “The Relations between Sociology
and History in the United States: The
Current State of Affairs.” Journal
of Historical Sociology 20 (1): 1-12.
_____. 2007b. “Transdisciplinarity as a
Nonimperial Encounter: for an Open Sociology.”
Thesis Eleven 91: 48-63.
Taylor, Charles. 2003. Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press.
Wagner,
Peter. 2003. “As Intellectual History Meets Historical Sociology: Historical
Sociology a fter the Linguistic Turn.” In Handbook of Historical Sociology, edited by G. Delanty and E.F.
Isin, 168-179. London: Sage.
Special Terms
division
system 분단체제 分斷體制 globality 지구성 地球性 Guk
국 國
historicity 역사성 歷史性
Institute for Korean Social History 한국사회사연구회 韓國社會史硏究會
Korean Social History Association 한국사회사학회
韓國社會史學會
Korean Critical Sociological Association 한국비판사회학회
韓國批判社會學會
Korean Industrial Sociological Association 한국산업사회학회
韓國産業社會學會
Korean Institute for Research on Industrial
Society 한국산업사회연구회 韓國産業社會硏究會
Korean Sociological
Association 한국사회학회 韓國社會學會 reflexivity 성찰성 省察性
silsa
gusi searching for concrete evidence 실사구시
實事求是
No comments:
Post a Comment