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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 역사교육연구회 역사교육 歷史敎育 第161輯
- 발행연도
- 2022.3
- 수록면
- 255 - 288 (34page)
- DOI
- 10.18622/kher.2022.03.161.255
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Several objections were raised during the National Assembly discussion before the ‘humanitarianism’ was adopted as the Korean educational ideology. There were concerns that it could limit the values of democracy and liberalism and become a fascist logic, but there was generally a consensus that the universal (Western) value of ‘democracy’ should be transformed (ethnic) according to our situation. Therefore, the ‘democratic national education theory’ could be proposed by Ahn Ho-sang, the first Minister of Education. Ahn Ho-sang argued that he avoided both the exclusivity of nationalism and the visa nature of democracy and combined it into “democratic national education.” However, it was fascistic in that it filled the empty space with the people and the state by denying most of the existing political ideologies.
Through the presentations of the Democratic National Education Research Conference held in March 1949 and a book called Democratic National Education Theory, we could get a glimpse of how education officials and field teachers accepted Ahn Ho-sang’s Democratic National Education Theory. Education officials basically recognized democracy and nationalism as conflicting and contradictory concepts, but took a passive attitude to suture the two concepts. Like Sa Gong-Hwan, director of the Higher Education Bureau, there were cases where “democratic national education” was justified by weaving nationalist historical perceptions such as Shin Chae-ho, Ahn Ho-sang, Ahn Jae-hong, and Son Jin-tae. There was also a contradiction that the social life and contents newly established to introduce American-style democracy of the time fell into “organic nationalism.”
Field teachers also often sympathized with the (guardian) theory that individualistic education and class education should be denied, and that individuals should sacrifice for the people, citing the succession of the Hwarangdo spirit and the Samil independence movement spirit. Some people asked what was essentially the core of “democratic education” and diagnosed that excessive “national education” was being advocated as a reaction to the U.S. military government education policy, but only a few. Education expert Oh Chun-seok also consistently opposed the ‘democratic national education theory’. He criticized that the theory of nationalism education was actually based on a fascist worldview. As a result, however, it did not go further from the level of awareness that seeks the possibility of harmony between democracy and nationalism and concerns about the exclusivity of nationalism.
Through the presentations of the Democratic National Education Research Conference held in March 1949 and a book called Democratic National Education Theory, we could get a glimpse of how education officials and field teachers accepted Ahn Ho-sang’s Democratic National Education Theory. Education officials basically recognized democracy and nationalism as conflicting and contradictory concepts, but took a passive attitude to suture the two concepts. Like Sa Gong-Hwan, director of the Higher Education Bureau, there were cases where “democratic national education” was justified by weaving nationalist historical perceptions such as Shin Chae-ho, Ahn Ho-sang, Ahn Jae-hong, and Son Jin-tae. There was also a contradiction that the social life and contents newly established to introduce American-style democracy of the time fell into “organic nationalism.”
Field teachers also often sympathized with the (guardian) theory that individualistic education and class education should be denied, and that individuals should sacrifice for the people, citing the succession of the Hwarangdo spirit and the Samil independence movement spirit. Some people asked what was essentially the core of “democratic education” and diagnosed that excessive “national education” was being advocated as a reaction to the U.S. military government education policy, but only a few. Education expert Oh Chun-seok also consistently opposed the ‘democratic national education theory’. He criticized that the theory of nationalism education was actually based on a fascist worldview. As a result, however, it did not go further from the level of awareness that seeks the possibility of harmony between democracy and nationalism and concerns about the exclusivity of nationalism.
목차
1. 序言
2. 교육이념 ‘홍익인간’ 채택 과정의 쟁점
3. ‘민주주의 민족교육론’의 정립 과정
4. 오천석의 교육관에서 민주주의와 민족주의의 관계
5. 結語
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Rethinking Chinese Nationalism in Transnational Contexts
외국학연구
2015 .01
-
정치민족주의와 문화민족주의
프랑스사 연구
2017 .08
-
남북 통합의 이념적 토대로서 민주주의 : 해방정국의 민주주의 담론 분석과 그 재구성을 중심으로
통일인문학
2017 .12
-
해방/패전 직후 한국과 일본의 민족주의 교육 비교연구
사림
2020 .01
-
교수요목기(1945~1955) 사회생활과 설치와 한국사 교육론 -사공환과 손진태를 중심으로-
韓國史學史學報
2019 .01
-
민족주의에 대한 비판적 성찰을 통한 한국 기독교와 민족주의 접합에 관한 소고
장신논단
2017 .03
-
Nationalism and Ethnicity: Korean-Chinese Academics’ Views on China’s Multi-Ethnic Nationalism
Journal of Northeast Asian History
2016 .06
-
한국 민족주의 연구의 쟁점과 과제
민족연구
2019 .01
-
민족주의의 근대론적 성찰 -정치와 경제의 근대적 역동성
민족연구
2021 .01
-
3·1운동 연구의 흐름과 민족주의의 향방
사학연구
2020 .09
-
역사 사료적으로 살펴본 3·1운동 관련 ‘문헌’
신학지남
2019 .03
-
일제 말기 ‘파시즘적 교육’의 개념화 문제
역사교육
2023 .06
-
1990년대의 국제화 · 세계화와 대중 민족주의
한국민족문화
2020 .11
-
조소앙의 단군민족주의와 삼균사상
고조선단군학
2018 .06
-
재일 디아스포라 지식인의 에세이(글쓰기)에 나타난 민족주의/탈민족주의 : 강상중과 서경식을 중심으로
우리문학연구
2017 .07
-
What Kind of Nation-State Do They Want to Build: Chinese Intellectuals and Nationalism in Contemporary China
중국지식네트워크
2023 .05
-
양안의 민족주의 정서 고양과 양안관계
중국학논총
2017 .01
-
통일문학교육 이념으로서 민족주의와 다문화주의 연구
문학교육학
2016 .01
-
유대민족과유대민족주의기원과관계탐색: 구약성서에 나타난 히브리어 고이(גּוֹי)를 중심으로
신학과 학문
2021 .08
-
‘국민’이 되지 못한 자의 곤경
중국문화연구
2022 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0