지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Once the subject ‘Asia and modernity’ was discussed in the field of historical science, it used to be generally dealt with in four theoretical types: colonial view of history, theory of immanent development, theory of colonial modernization and historical postmodernism. Although there are more or less antagonistic historical views and differences between those four types, all of them have a tendency to tally with the argument that the ‘modernity’ should be identified with the ‘Western capitalism and industrial society’. But all these theories seem to be (no matter how much they are for or against modernity) based on contracted and distorted version of modernity, and therefore I suggest that it must be understood as philosophical category. The modernity as a philosophical category should be equalized with the logocentrism, i. e. a cultural mode in which the hegemony struggle is performed through the superiority or inferiority of language and logic. On the basis of this new notion, the typical modernity could be found not only temporally in the 17<SUP>th</SUP> century or geographically in the Western Europe but also (especially) in the neo-confucian Chosun dynasty which was founded and governed in terms of philosophical (and therefore: logocentric) ideas. On the contrary, what is called as ‘modern symptoms’(colonialistic plunder, nature destruction etc.) ought rather to be characterized as anti-modernity under the mask of modernity. From the definition of this new philosophical view of history, the self-consciousness of Asians could be free from their extreme ressentiment against the modernity and historical defeatism.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0