Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea:

For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic

History1)
Sangwoo Lim* 2)

___________________________________________________________________________ Abstract

The modern way of writing history in Korea began with the European expansion
into East Asia in the late 19th and in the early 20th century. The Japanese colonial
regime from 1910 to 1945 marked a watershed in Korean historiography, both in
positive and in negative ways. This article examines how the colonial experience and
the subsequent establishment of a modern nation impacted on the historiography in
modern Korea, especially on the conception of ‘scientific’ history that derives basically
from the conception of modernity which in turn raises more problematic issues in
practicing historical science among Korean historians up to the present times. In so
doing, it indicates that the basic assumption of historical profession as ‘science’ which
have predominated throughout the course of modern Korean historiography becomes
more and more challenged in academic discussions in Korea. It also suggests that a
post-colonial and post-nationalistic approach is needed for historical studies in
contemporary Korea.

Key words historiography in Korea, postcolonial history, nationalistic history,

scientific history, positivistic history.
__________________________________________________________________________

1) The contents of this article include in part the paper presented first at the international
conferences on “Cultural Relationships between Europe and Korea in Modern and
Contemporary Age,” held on May 9, 2014 at University of Firenze, Italy.
*Professor Emeritus Department of History, Sogang University, Korea.
E-mail: swlim@sogang.ac.kr

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 5

 Introduction

The history of historiography in Korea extends to ancient times.

According to a credible literature, ancient Korean kingdoms began to write
and compile their own histories probably as early as the 4th century AD.3)
Since then every succeeding dynasty had carefully compiled official
records and published their own histories. One of the most conspicuous
examples among them was the volumes o f “Joseon Dynasty Chronicle”
that are designated as UNESCO Memory of the World.
The modern - the problematic word modern means here largely
Western or European - way of writing history in Korea began with the
European expansion into East Asia in the late 19th and in the early 20th
century. The Japanese colonial regime from 1910 to 1945 marked a
watershed in Korean historiography, both in positive and in negative ways.
In this article, I would like to examine how the colonial experience and
the subsequent establishment of a modern nation impacted on the
historiography in modern Korea, especially on the conception of ‘scientific’
history that derives basically from the conception of modernity which in
turn raises more problematic issues in practicing historical science among
Korean historians up to the present times.

Formation of Modern Historiography in Colonial Korea: Nationalist,

‘Positivist’ and Marxist Historiographies

One unique aspect in Korean history since the earliest times until
about one hundred years ago was the uninterrupted succeeding of

3) According to Sam Kuk Sa Ki (History of Three Kingdoms) written by Kim Bu Sik in

the 12th century, the ancient Korean kingdoms were compiling their official histories,
although they have not been inherited till the present.

6 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

dynasties. It was natural then that the traditional way of periodization in
historical writings was by kings and dynasties. Accordingly, there could
be no such schematic development or evolution in this traditional
historiography in Korea.
The traditional standard of the periodization of historical sequence had
been marked by dynasty after dynasty. They simply kept recording what
had happened in those dynasties. If one adds a word ‘actually’ here, it
may sound like what Leopold von Ranke said, “as it actually happened.”
Those actual records in turn would be useful or even indispensable for
the posterior kings who could consult those recorded exemplars in their
ruling of their kingdoms, as if they looked at a mirror of the past.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Japanese colonial invasion into
Korea was accompanied by an introduction of modern, namely European,
historical science to Korean intellectuals together with other modern
knowledge and institutions. The first generation of modern Korean
historians were understandably ultra-nationalistic in striving for
remaining in independence of their nation. For them new or modern
historical writing that would testify ‘scientifically’ the existence of Korean
nation was regarded as the most suitable way to preserve their national
identity and heritages and to awaken the rest of Korean people who were
suffering from colonial suppression. But the nationalist historians were not
capable of grasping Korean history from a broader perspective, such as
the viewpoints of universal history or comparative history. They were
looking only into the microcosm of Korean nation, in search of the
historical and cultural heritages that would preserve and enhance the
Korean national spirit. As a result, they had only to emphasize the
peculiarity of Korean history, viewed against the histories of other nations
including aggressive Japan.
It is ironical, then, to see that the imperial Japanese scholars who

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 7

studied Korean history as well as taught the first generation of Korean
historians had promoted another kind of peculiarity thesis with a different
intention. While Koreans were eager to find out the unique, thus
self-sustaining, characteristic of Korean history, Japanese imperialistic
scholars, although they were claiming their study of history as an
objective science, were preoccupied with characterizing Korean history as
under-developed and inferior to the advanced histories that follows the
universal developmental schema in world history like Japan. Thus, they
held the static theory of Korean history which was supposed to be lacking
in any evolutionary development, instead denoting only a perpetuation of
dynastic successions. Even the geographical existence of Korea as
peninsular was asserted by them, with the notion of geographic
determinism but without any scientific ground, as producing
disadvantageous shortcomings of Korean history.4)
While most of the nationalist historians were conducting their research
and writing outsides of imperial academic institutions, there were some
other Korean scholars within the official institutions. Many of the first
generation of modern historians in Korea studied under the guidance of
Japanese historians who were on their part pioneering the modern
Japanese historiography within the wall of national institutions, such as
imperial universities. Although the ideal of historical science among the
Japanese historians was oriented toward a rigid scholarship derived mainly
from German historian Leopold von Ranke’s conception of historical
science (Wissenschaft), they were subsumed to the imperialistic outlook
in its political implications, consciously or unconsciously.
In those years when Western historical science was introduced to
Japan who was rapidly transforming into a modern state, the Rankeian

4) Lee Ki-Baik Nation and History ( 역사). Il Jo Gak, 1971, pp. 2-11.

8 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

version of historical science was for some reason wrongfully translated
as “positivistic” - obviously a misleading term because what they meant
by positivist was a Rankeian historical science rather than August Comte’s
version of ‘positivistic science.’ They may have been confused between
the rigid methodology in historical research promulgated by Ranke and the
conception of exact science advocated by Comte known as positivism.
Whatever they called it, what they wanted to conduct was historical
research over strictly verified evidences as Ranke had taught his
followers, so taught Japanese mentors the first Korean disciples.5) As a
result, those Korean students were rather proud of their version of
‘scientific’ research, endlessly finding out new facts and fixing them as
historical reality without making any effort to synthesize those facts into
an overarching schema which genuine positivistic historians might well
strive for. In their striving for finding out “what actually happened” in
Korean history, those Korean historians might have possessed, in my
observation, a strategy for political evasion under the reality of colonial
regime without challenging their teacher’s inclination of minimizing the
magnitude of Korea’s past.
During the 1930s, on the other hand, emerged a new kind of Korean
historians who were also trained in the universities in Japan. Their
conceptualization of history was largely based on the Marxist assumption
which was quite popular at that time known as ‘academic socialism’ in
some Japanese universities. But both under the imperial government in
Japan and under the colonial government in Korea, Marxist activism had
been severely surpassed because it could create a social awakening in
Japan and a nationalistic revolt against Japanese imperial capitalism in
Korea. That was why most of those Marxist historians called their studies

5) Lee Ki-Baik History of Korean Historiography ( ). Il Jo Gak, 2011, pp.

191-200.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 9

almost in disguise socio-economic history.6) Yet their assumptions and
practice were overwhelmingly influenced by the Marxist historical
materialism. They made effort to synthesize those facts found and
collected by the positivist historians into an overarching schema of
evolutionary history that was assumed by the Marxist theory.
This kind of socio-economic history began as a reaction to the
nationalist and to the positivist trends that had already existed in Korean
historiography. But it is also noteworthy that those socio-economic
historians in Korea denoted ambiguous attitudes in two matters. On the
one hand, in opposing the peculiarity thesis that both the nationalist and
the positivist historians held, the socio-economic historians formulated
‘scientifically,’ again in their own terms, a universal developmental model
applied to Korean history. On the other hand, they were still inclined to
a nationalistic attitude in their abhorring the Japanese colonial interference
into the autonomous development. What they assumed was that the course
of development of Korean history had been on the verge of moving into
capitalistic society before the imperial Japan annexed Korea. So, the path
of Korean history that was to develop according to the universal law found
through ‘scientific’ research over the facts was hindered and altered
decisively by the colonial regime.
Second, they maintained a different conception of the science. Against
the positivist historians who were also championing the scientific
methodology in history, the socio-economic historians were thinking that
they were the genuine scientists since they studied history from the
perspective of a universal law. Of course, the universal law was derived
from the Marxist conception of history. Thus, they were able to make
periodization in Korean history, without referring to dynastic successions

6) Baik Nam-Woon Socio-Economic History of Korea ( ). Seoul, 1933.

10 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

as the positivist did, as having experienced the well-known developmental
steps: from the primitive communist society through the ancient slavery
society to the medieval feudal society. Now Korea was about to move into
capitalism, namely toward a modern society, but Japanese hindered the
course of natural development. A socialist revolution would solve the
colonial questions, and at the same time would make Korean history move
into the scientifically proven stage, toward a socialist state. It is, then,
interesting to observe that both positivist and Marxist historians in earlier
phase of modern historiography in Korea were geared commonly on
nationalistic fervour as well as scientific devotion whatever the both
factions meant by science.

Nation Building and Modernization of Korea: Neo-Nationalism and

People’s History

In 1945 Korea was liberated from imperial Japanese regime, but with
the advent of the Cold War two governments were established separately
in the North and in the South in 1948. Two different governments
eventually produced two different historiographies according to their
professed ideologies. In the North prevailed the only historiography based
on the dialectics of historical materialism. In the South under the name
of neo-nationalism remained prospering the positivistic historiography
that was handed down from the colonial period.7) While they were sticking
to the Rankeian conception of history in their scientific efforts, those
neo-nationalistic historians did not hesitate to profess their intention of
nationalism.
Although the question of colonialism seemed to be solved

7) Son Jin-Tae, Outlines in National History of Korea ( ). Seoul, 1948.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 11

automatically as the two states became independent, a new question arose.
It was the modernization question that has since bothered Korean
historians till the present days, especially when the two states waged an
war and are competing with each other in terms of economic and historical
development. In North Korea things were easier to formulate their own
history as having a developmental nature. Their building of allegedly a
socialist nation was viewed as the modernization itself. From this
perspective making periodization of Korean history was very simple:
succeeding a period of ancient slavery kingdoms Korea experienced a long
period of feudalism, and the capitalism was introduced forcefully by the
Japanese colonialism, and finally the building of a communist society
would fulfil the process of modernization.8)
In South Korea things were more complicated. The political and
military confrontations with North Korea rendered no opportunity to apply
Marxist view in South Korean historiography until recently. Even the
publications of history textbooks for secondary schools are still proctored
by the National Ministry of Education for the announced purpose of
protecting the assumed liberal democracy and enhancing the national
solidarity from the threat of communist infiltration. Thus, remain
unaltered the nationalist tradition in combination with the positivist
tradition in contemporary Korean historiography, both derived from the
colonial era.
But the historians in South Korea had to look for a developmental
periodization of their past without adopting the Marxist schema. They are
usually in the standpoint of advocating the legitimacy of the liberal
democracy in South Korea, thus called as conservative right-wing
historians by ‘progressive’ opponents. Consequently, they are eager to

8) Chung Doo-Hee One History, Two Historical Studies ( 역사, 두개의 역사학). So
Na Moo, 2001.

12 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

find out autonomous and indigenous trends and patterns of development
within Korean history itself. But their efforts have always been shadowed
by the unintended or unaware adoption of European historical path in
describing the evolutionary feature of Korean past, particularly on the
matter of modernization.
In the 1980s when a vehement resistance against military regime
broke out with a general support from Korean people in general, there
emerged a new trend of historical scholarship in South Korea. It all began
as an opposition to the positivistic tradition in academic terms. But there
were strong political implications in this new movement of writing history
that is regarded as a most effective avenue to promote democracy against
iron fist military dictatorship. A group of younger historians, who were
mostly outside of academic chairs in the university, advocated people’s
history or populist history.9) It was in principle based largely on a revived
version of the Marxist conception of history that took root in Korean
historiography as a disguised form of socio-economic history during the
colonial period. While they were opposing the military government for the
rehabilitation of rights of people, those people’s historians regarded their
writing history as a way of political liberation from the half-colonial state
monopoly capitalism. In other words, the modern period in Korean history
had to be fulfilled with a social revolution.
It is ironical to observe that they are frequently called or calling
themselves progressive historians. In reality, they were too radical in their
political attitudes to be merely progressive. And they were too
retrospective in their nationalistic aspirations to be called progressive
once again. They also talked about their genuine science but their
preponderance toward schematic development in Korean history always

9) Institute for People’s History of Korea, People’s History of Korea ( ). Pool

Bit, 1986.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 13

hindered the balanced insight and the detached objectivity that are
essential to historical research and writing. It is, again, even awkward
from the standpoint of ‘historical science’ to observe their obsession to
maintain nationalistic spirit and scientific devotion at the same time.
It is well known that under the slogan of the modernization of
fatherland that was led by military dictators, South Korea witnessed a
rapid industrialization since 1960s. Here arose the question of
modernization in Korean historiography. Historians had to find out
indigenous growth of capitalism in their recent past with a purpose to fit
the course of Korean history into the seemingly universal development
of modern history, namely the one Europe had experienced. They were
eager to prove with positivistic history that the modern era had already
begun in the 18th and the 19th century, namely well before Japanese
colonialism began. As a result, the so-called ‘sprout of capitalism thesis’
became one of the most heated debates among Korean scholars during last
half a century. But it seems that the sprout cannot be found easily and
proved convincingly. After all, it is likely that the bud of capitalism never
sprouted as they cannot yet find one after a long research of more than
fifty futile years.
Similar is the pedantic debate among the so-call rightist and leftist
historians regarding the characteristics of proto-capitalistic
modernization during the Japanese colonial regime. Some conservative
rightist historians emphasized their scientific rigor in facing the ‘facts’
happened actually in the colonial period. Most of the progressive leftist
historians, professing their self-ordained obligation for preserving
national integrity, became outrageous by the rightist contention that
Japanese colonial regime started the process of modernization in Korea.
More recently, similar is an antagonistic debate over the role of
authoritarian and military governments in the process of industrialization

14 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

and modernization. The conservative politicians are attempting to alter the
descriptions in the history textbook for the secondary schools that is
published under the strict control of the government on the characteristic
of those dictators as monumental one in the process of modernization of
contemporary Korea. The progressive historians are vehemently opposing
to the move, since they still sustain their claim that their method of
writing history is the only scientific way possessing objective scholarship.

Nationalistic Appropriation of Modernization Paradigm

Whichever the scientific and political orientation various Korean

historians take, they have seldom raised questions about 'Euro-centric
historical view. 'Here 'Europe' refers generally to Western Europe and its
derived civilization (such as America and Oceania). If so, what is
Euro-centric history? In short, 'European history' represents the
universal direction of world history development. Here, European history
or European civilization is dominated by the Greco-Roman tradition and
the Germanic tradition. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
Primary advocators for European civilization, including Hegel, Ranke and
Marx, Meinecke had the same idea about the universal development of
history. Ranke once said, "India and China have a grand chronology, but
at best they only have natural history."10) They understood world history
as a process of progression of human civilization toward the ultimate
completion. Prior to this, almost all European intellectuals who worshiped
the tradition of the Enlightenment were immersed in this universal
historical progressive guardian, whose universal history was undoubtedly
represented by European history.

10) Georg G. Igger The Theory and Practice of History. Indianapolis, 1973, p. 184.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 15

 The notion of progress in this world history consists of three basic
concepts. Those are nation state, liberty, and civilization. In other words,
the general subject of world historical development is the nation state
which would realize freedom of its people, and the process of the
realization is civilization itself. As an outstanding example of this historical
idea, F. Fukuyama declared the fulfilment of freedom as "the end of
history.11) On the other hand, the civilization is often expressed as
Christianity, which is the religious foundation that formed Europe in
spiritual terms. For example, President Bush of the United States was
referring to the US military forces in war as "crusades of civilization
against the axes of evil" or "fighters for freedom" against Iraq.
It is noteworthy that the Eurocentric worldview formed by Europeans
has been voluntarily accepted by the lesser countries all over the world,
including East Asia. Those non-European countries, in the course of their
so-called 'modernization' process, found their modern models in European
history and projected their modernized futures into a history of European
progress. Faced with the aggression of Western imperialism, the ideas of
the establishment of the nation-state, the realization of the people's
liberty and the progress of the civilization are emerging as the tasks of
these colonial countries. As a result, the course of development in
European history has become a teacher of history as such. At the same
time, this notion of Europe-centered worldview and progress influenced
historical research and narrative in those developing countries. Historical
research and academic institutions, which was newly started in East Asia
during the colonial period, embraced European research methodology as
immutable academic truth.
The core content of the Eurocentric historical view is the paradigm

11) Francis Fukuyama "The End of History?" The National Interest, Vol.9. Summer, 1989,
pp. 3-18.

16 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

of modernization. This paradigm emerged in the nineteenth century
Prussia, still fall behind in modern conditions and with the mandate of
national unification of German people. At this juncture, there emerged a
new historical science. The new history was related to the need for
precision in criticism of historical data and the specialization of historical
research. The need for specialization was the ideal of scientific objectivity
that asked historians to restrain moral judgments. In theory, this has
created a clear distinction between history and literature and between
professional and amateur historians. Until then, the activities of the
historian were in violation of all these norms. History has now been freed
from metaphysical speculation, and the request of Ranke for history to
indulge himself in the profession intuitively revealed the great power of
history.
The great power of history ultimately made it possible to organize
history into a coherent narrative. However, in this ideology of history, the
guarantor of moral judgment was the reality of a nation. In this sense,
the new professional history was a highly ideological work that ultimately
justified the reality of the nation state. This practice has been applied not
only in Germany but also throughout the world. Thus, the scientific history
of modernization was closely intertwined with nationalistic aspirations
from its inception.12)

Internalization of History as Universal Progress in East Asian

Historiography

Among the basic concepts of Western history accepted in Korean

historiography, two are particularly problematic, the conceptions of

12) Georg G. Iggers, tr. Sang-Woo Lim and Ki-Bong Kim History of the 20th Century
Historiography. Blue History, 1999, pp. 43-56.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 17

'modernization' and 'monolithic progress.' The notion of modernization has
been criticized widely in recent years. But the idea of progress since the
Enlightenment, the idea that the world history develops according to a
uniform law of historical development, has not been fully denied yet. The
progress in science and technology and the progress in social organization
would certainly testify the universal progress in the civilization of
mankind.
This conception of universal progress was widely adopted by the social
thinkers in the nineteenth century and the social sciences in the 20th
century. In the 1960s, for example, R. Rostow expressed unwavering
confidence in the market economy and liberal democracy13) In other
words, for the last 200 years the ideals of the Enlightenment have
remained unshaken in that history is a process of progressive
development. Extreme examples of this kind of thinking were Stalinism,
Nazism and Maoism, which can also be included in a category of
modernization history. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out
that the process of modernization in actual history is not that simple. For
example, the modernization of Germany was a different imperfect
modernization compared to the modernization of Britain and America.
To summarize the belief in monolithic progress, the notion of
modernization is so closely linked to the development of capitalism and
the process of world domination of capital. It should also be emphasized
that the East Asian countries, when they adopted the Western model of
historical development, were not forced by the European countries that
led the imperial expansions, but rather that they embraced the Western
model voluntarily and internalized them in their formation of historical
consciousness. In these countries, the nation state and its people are a

13) R. R. Rostow Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge, 1960.

18 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

kind of 'alliance of consensus' in their striving for national development
and advanced civilization.
The division of historical periods in European historiography which
East Asian historians adopted as a model was also a development process
of world history composed of a trilogy. The three stages of the ancient,
medieval, and modern periods represented the universal development of
world history, and East Asian history had to undergo three trilateral stages
of European history, ignoring their unique historical developments.
Therefore, in the modern historiography in East Asia, the age
demarcations and terms in historical science were understood and used
entirely within the framework of European history (Renaissance,
Geographical Discovery, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution,
Napoleonic era, etc.). In particular, the modern past of Europe was the
modernization process that should be realized in the future history of East
Asia.
In short, the conception of universal world history which was
internalized by historians in East Asia was represented in the history of
Europe, and it encompasses both "history as an event" and "history as
a study." Therefore, East Asian historians have long been able to maintain
the optimistic perception so that East Asian history studied with the
Western historical methodology is consistent with the developmental
model of European history following the laws of development of world
history. This kind of attitude is an internalization of European universal
apostasy itself, and it is also true that such uncritical internalization has
spread not only to historical studies but also to other humanities and social
sciences such as literature and philosophy.
Since the modern historiography embarked in Korea during the colonial
era, three words have always remained problematic; nationalism, science
and modernization. And these three words have been altogether agonizing

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 19

the historians of various kinds; nationalistic, positivistic, socio-economic
and people’s historians. These conceptions are bothering historians
especially in their task of the periodization of Korean history. From its
outset the modern historiography in Korea had to confront with some
adverse influences and had to nurture the pathetic aspirations to respond
the adversity--responding the agonies of imperialism, division of the
nation, dictatorship and modernization. In so doing, Korean historians have
been oscillating between the two extremes in their observation of nation
past; peculiarity and universality14)
It seems that this dilemma between the two horns is well expressed
in historians’ periodization in their historical writings. Whenever the
historians, regardless of the right or the left, want to emphasize the
peculiarity of Korean past, they fell easily into the narrow vision of
history, sacrificing the science with an intention to rescue national
aspirations. Whenever the historians, on the contrary, want to find out the
innate developmental elements in Korean history, they forcibly fit Korean
history into the assumed universal track of Eurocentric historical
development. A third way, namely a dialectic of the two contradictories
should be searched for.

Beyond the Eurocentric Historical ‘Science’

The criticism of the Eurocentric view of history was first raised among
Western intellectuals with the advent of post-colonialism,
post-modernism that began to emerge especially in the late 20th century.
The 1960's saw a turning point in the confidence of the Western
civilization and in the positive evaluation of the traditions and institutions

14) Lee Ki-Baik Problem of Periodization in Korean History ( 시대구분 문제) in

Periodization of Korean History (한국사 시대구분론). Eul Yoo Culture Publish, 1970.

20 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

based on scientific rationality in modern Western history. Until the earlier
twentieth century, the social sciences research method had been closely
related to its positive evaluation of capitalism, Western societies and their
political norms. But, beginning in 1960’s, the Civil Rights Movements in
the United States, the post-colonial war in Vietnam, the perception of
ecological crisis and the emergence of feminism all contributed to a
thorough review of established historical assumptions and research
methods. The grand narrative structure of modernization theory began to
lose confidence. As a result, historians became more interested in cultural
aspects in history that could not be understood in terms of quantitative
terms. As a result. grand scale histories based on the conception of
universal development have been replaced by the micro-history which
focuses on the experience of ordinary people's lives.
Some of the exemplary criticisms of the Eurocentrism historical view
raised under this historical context are as follows: E. Saids’ “Orientalism”
dissected ‘the Orient’ from the Eurocentric appropriation. I. Wallerstein
understood the backwardness of the third world with the conception of
‘world system.’ M. Foucault warned of ‘micro hegemonic power’ following
A. Gramsci’s contention for the class struggle against ‘cultural hegemony.’
J. Derrida also sought a radical 'deconstruction of the centers.' The
criticisms of these Western intellectuals are different from each other's
motives and points of view, but one thing can be found in common, which
is deeply related to the dissolution of the West-centered view of histor
y.15)
On the other hand, movements to overcome discrimination against race
and gender are also linked to the challenges to the European-centered
worldview. Feminism, while attempting to overthrow the dominant

15) Edward Said Orientalism. Minneapolis, 1974: Immanuel Wallerstein, World System.
London, 1971: Jacques Derrida, Of Gramatology. New York, 1967.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 21

governance over women of white bourgeois men, has come to deny and
subvert the history of white men. In addition, the "Blacks" historians in
the United States were encouraging the "African American" historical
narrative to counter the racial discrimination of whites in the face of
European-centered American history. More recently, a history beyond
national borders has attracted attention, a trans-national history that goes
beyond the boundaries of national states in line with the EU integration
process. A good example is the joint history textbooks between Germany
and France which were recently published in both countries at the same
time.16)
In Asia, attempts are being made to describe history that goes beyond
the Eurocentric view of history. ‘Subaltern studies’, which began in India
in the 1980s, was interested in the fact that the history of India, which
is focused on the mission of the Indian middle class for their nation state,
had only imitated the Western model of writing history. These studies
revealed that nationalist historians who were willing to resist European
hegemonic domination during the colonial era had in fact appropriated
nationalism to secure their political and social hegemony among Indian
people who were composed of with many social classes including the
lowest of the low, ‘subaltern.’ So, they emphasized the need for ‘history
from below.’ Ashis Nandy indicated a culture that relies on "myths,
legends and epic.17)
The key issues in these criticisms are the notion of the nation state
and the idea of rationalization. The process of modernization and modern
rationalization is the two-sided relationship of the same coin.
Specialization in the discipline of history is specialization as a science,
Wissenschaft in German expression. However, there are two very

16) Guillaume Le Quintrec and Peter Geiss, eds., Histoire / Geschichte. Leipzig, 2006.
17) Ashis Nandy "History's Forgotten Doubles" History and Theory 34. 1995, p. 44.

22 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

different scientific concepts in German context or Western context. One
is the concept of the history of science that originated in the Ranke. It
refers to a discipline that studies history as a social and cultural approach
rather than a view of history as natural science. Another very different
one is Marx's conception of science and his perception of history.
The concept of two sciences has led to two different trends in the
study of history in East Asia. In the process of creating a nation state
with their nationalist aspirations, Ranke's assumed ‘objective’ scientific
and historical view was widely utilized. Another is a model that is
​
contradictory to the idea of national construction, which comes from the
Marxist conception of universal science that is to prove the victory of the
proletariat regardless of their nationality. This conception of Marxist
science was adopted in the interpretation and study of history as a
phenomenon that appeared in Japan and Korea and most strongly in Latin
America. The modern historical methodology established by Ranke has
culminated in the history of the modern nation-state. As a result, the
mainstream of history writings has moved away from the quest for
universal truth and come to the individual experience of the nation.

Concluding Remarks

Since the modern historiography was embarked in Korea during the

colonial era, three words have always remained problematic; nationalism,
science and modernization. And these three words have been altogether
agonizing the historians of various kinds; nationalistic, positivistic,
socio-economic and populist historians. These words are bothering
historians especially in their formulation of the modern period in Korean
history.
From its outset the modern historiography in Korea had to confront

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 23

with some adverse influences and had to nurture the pathetic aspirations
to respond those adversities--confronting the agonies of imperialism,
division of the nation, dictatorships and rapid industrial modernization. In
so doing, Korean historians have been oscillating between the two
extremes in their observation of national past: peculiarity and universality.
They have also been bothered by the two formidable tasks as historians:
establishment of historical profession as a solid form of science as well
as searching for the meanings in Korean history, especially around the
question of modernization.
It seems that this dilemma between the two horns is well expressed
in historians’ conceptualization of modern period in their historical
writings. Whenever the historians, regardless of the right or the left, want
to emphasize the peculiarity of Korean past, they fell easily into the
narrow vision of history, sacrificing the scientific rigorousness in order
to rescue national aspirations. Whenever the historians, on the contrary,
want to find out the innate developmental elements in Korean history, they
forcibly fit Korean history into the assumed universal track of Eurocentric
view of historical development. Grandiose national peculiarity and
universal scientific development: these two obsessions are to be dissolved
in order to expect a historical science as such in Korean historiography
of the day.
The term 'world history' used in Korea routinely means
'Buchverbindungsweltgeschichte (bookbinding world history)' in the sense
that it comprehensively covers the histories of various countries and
regions around the world without offering any structural coherence. This
may be because the subject of world history deals with other countries’
history except Korea in the curriculum of secondary school. Knowing and
understanding the historical facts of the past has its own value. The
problem, however, is how it is possible to reconstruct the entire human

24 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

history. Since the establishment of modern history, academic
achievements and accumulation of knowledge have increased
tremendously, but this does not mean that it is possible to restore the
entire past of mankind to a unified form. Ranke vaguely said that if studies
on individual subjects were accumulated, he would eventually go on to
describe world history, but his disciples have focused only on
accumulating concrete facts, betraying the hope of their great teacher.
Moreover, the world history we are accustomed to has not been based
on the comprehensive experience of humanity. Our knowledge of world
history is composed by the Eurocentrism deriving from the footsteps of
European civilization that began in ancient Greece and Rome. Of course,
in the current description of world history, ancient civilizations outside
of Europe, namely histories of China, India and the Islamic world, are also
covered, but this is complementary or peripheral to the central history
of Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that Eurocentric world history
plays a role in supporting the reality of the present world since the
nineteenth century. Western modernity has predominated over the world.
Accordingly, today's world history narrative depicts Europe's modern
civilization as the highest stage of human development and implies the
relative downfall of the history of non-Western societies such as Asia.
On the other hand, another trend in writing world history is to find
the historical principle of universality beyond the differences in individual
countries and societies. Although the importance of individuality in history
was emphasized by Ranke, the quest for universal truth in history cannot
be neglected as long as it exists as a discipline. In modern historical
science, there is a tendency that pursues universal principles apart from
the position of individuality like Ranke. Marx's relic is a representative
theory that approaches history through universal laws. Marx found the
most important factor in the development of the history of mankind, the

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 25

development of material productivity.
This Marxian view of history is based on the belief that history goes
on along the universal principles. He argued that the component of the
development of material productivity does not apply only to a particular
society or country, but to all history of all societies. Thus, his
developmental history was based on a universal law that defines world
history. Marxist philosophers and revolutionaries were trying to establish
the next stage of historical development. However, Marx 's view of
history also denotes a great deficiency. Marx looked at history through
the historical experience of European society from ancient Greece to
modern Europe. He regarded historical experience of Europe as
representative of the history of mankind. Accordingly, the historical
development outside Europe was underestimated. In the end, Marx's
legacy was an European history that did not escape Eurocentrism, but it
was never a world history.
In summary, in the process of modernization and specialization of
scholarship mentioned above, the West has had a great optimism until
recently, and one of its extreme examples was Fukuyama's "The End of
History" that expressed great optimism about the history of liberal
democracy, market economy and universal civilization. However, since the
postmodern era began in the 1960s in the West, formidable resistances
to such optimistic progress have already occurred. In East Asia, by the
end of the 20th century historians have begun to raise questions about
the scientific and rational ideals of the modern world. As the ideals of
Western rationalism has begun to be challenged by the so-called
postcolonialism and postmodernism, the basic assumption of historical
profession as ‘science’ that have predominated throughout the course of
modern Korean historiography becomes more and more skeptical in
academic discussions as well as the Eurocentric narrative of world history.

26 International Journal of East Asia Research /Vol. 3/

 <References>

1. Baik Nam-Woon. Socio-Economic History of Korea( ). Seoul,

1933.
2. Chung Doo-Hee. One History, Two Historical Studies (하나의 역사, 두개의 역사
학). So Na Moo, 2001.
3. Jacques Derrida. Of Gramatology. New York, 1967.
4. Georg G. Iggers, tr. Sang-Woo Lim and Ki-Bong Kim. History of the 20th
Century Historiography. Blue History, 1999.
5. Institute for People’s History of Korea. People’s History of Korea (한국민중사).
Pool Bit, 1986.
6. Kim Bu Sik. History of Three Kingdoms (삼국사기). Seoul, 1973.
7. Lee Ki-Baik. Nation and History (민족과 역사). Il Jo Gak, 1971.
8. Lee Ki-Baik. History of Korean Historiography (한국사학사론). Il Jo Gak, 2011.
9. Lee Ki-Baik. Periodization of Korean History (한국사 시대구분론).
Eul Yoo Culture Publish, 1970.
10. Ashis Nandy, "History's Forgotten Doubles," History and Theory 34, 1995.
11. Guillaume Le Quintrec and Peter Geiss, eds. Histoire / Geschichte. Leipzig, 2006.
12. R. R. Rostow. Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge, 1960.
13. Edward Said. Orientalism. Minneapolis, 1974.
14. Son Jin-Tae, Outlines in National History of Korea(조선민족사개론). Seoul,
1948.
15. Immanuel Wallerstein. World System. London, 1971.

Modern Historical ‘Science’ in Korea: For a Post-Colonial and Post-Nationalistic History 27