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
The present is a 'historical being' in the sense that it belongs within category of history. The purpose of this paper is to examine how historicists and presentists understand the concept of 'historical present', whether there are commonalities between the two groups, and if any, what the typical attitudes of historians are toward the concept of 'historical present'. The concept of historical present has been understood differently among historical thinkers. For example, to Ranke, the present is the most simple time to be investigated through historical studies. To Droysen, present appears with more historio-theoretical character and is defined as something that is driven from the past and remains to us here now. To Burckhardt, the present, having the most concrete
and real shape, is conceptualized as the age of revolution. On the other hand, James H. Robinson, who belongs to a line of presentism, endows the present a pragmatic and progressive character reflected the atmosphere of his own time. Becker's concept of present is enlarged to 'spacious present', which is more inclusive, ambiguous, and infinite concept extended to the past and future. In Beard, the concept of present experienced a qualitative change, though reduced quantitatively, by being transformed to an ideology which makes us to see everything only through our own time. However, these various concepts of 'historical present' can be categorized into two streams of thought. For historicists, present is like a hot potato that prevents a truly objective study of history although it is so significant in gaining a standpoint necessary for viewing the world of history. On the other hand, presentists' attitude toward the present is near to admiration rather than to neutrality; for them it is dimmed or eliminated that there is a border between 'history as facts of the past' and ‘history as documentation of them',
which most other historians take for granted. There is also a common ground between two views. Both of them emphasize the importance of the historical present. This commonality proves that the 'historical present' is the starting point of every study of history, and that on the contrary every, any genuine study of history is impossible without a keen insight of the 'historical present'. Eventually when each historicism and presentism is simply understood as a theory believing 'past' is important in the study of history or 'present' is important respectively, the limitation of historicism could be overcome by presentistic thinking and that of presentism by historicistic thinking. What we aim is to sublate historicism and presentism dialectically.
and real shape, is conceptualized as the age of revolution. On the other hand, James H. Robinson, who belongs to a line of presentism, endows the present a pragmatic and progressive character reflected the atmosphere of his own time. Becker's concept of present is enlarged to 'spacious present', which is more inclusive, ambiguous, and infinite concept extended to the past and future. In Beard, the concept of present experienced a qualitative change, though reduced quantitatively, by being transformed to an ideology which makes us to see everything only through our own time. However, these various concepts of 'historical present' can be categorized into two streams of thought. For historicists, present is like a hot potato that prevents a truly objective study of history although it is so significant in gaining a standpoint necessary for viewing the world of history. On the other hand, presentists' attitude toward the present is near to admiration rather than to neutrality; for them it is dimmed or eliminated that there is a border between 'history as facts of the past' and ‘history as documentation of them',
which most other historians take for granted. There is also a common ground between two views. Both of them emphasize the importance of the historical present. This commonality proves that the 'historical present' is the starting point of every study of history, and that on the contrary every, any genuine study of history is impossible without a keen insight of the 'historical present'. Eventually when each historicism and presentism is simply understood as a theory believing 'past' is important in the study of history or 'present' is important respectively, the limitation of historicism could be overcome by presentistic thinking and that of presentism by historicistic thinking. What we aim is to sublate historicism and presentism dialectically.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론: ‘역사적 현재‘란 무엇인가?
Ⅱ. 역사적 현재에 대한 객관적 성찰의 출발: 역사주의
Ⅲ. 역사적 현재의 이데올로기화: 현재주의
Ⅳ. 결론
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
현재주의(presentism)의 대두와 ‘현재사(history of the present)’
역사교육
2020 .06
-
Ecocritical Theory, Presentism, and Praxis
문학과환경
2009 .12
-
우리시대 역사주의란 무엇인가
韓國史學史學報
2011 .01
-
랑케의‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’본래 의미와 독일 역사주의
역사와 담론
2004 .12
-
서구 ‘현대 역사학’의 탄생
韓國史學史學報
2019 .01
-
학생들의 역사 개념에 대한 이해 양상과 역사의식
역사교육
2009 .09
-
1945년 이후 독일 역사학계의 역사주의 담론
대구사학
2012 .01
-
포스트모던 역사인식과 역사학습
역사교육
2000 .06
-
현재의 한국사 연구와 역사관 문제
韓國史學史學報
2003 .01
-
부르크하르트와 역사주의
韓國史學史學報
2002 .01
-
역사이해와 역사교육-논리실증주의와 신관념론-
대구사학
2006 .01
-
레오폴트 폰 랑케의 역사 내러티브
역사학보
2019 .06
-
Research in Korean History: Past and Present
Korea Journal
1981 .09
-
역사적 사실의 특징과 역사교육의 특수성
역사교육
2010 .03
-
역사적 사고력의 하위범주와 역사학습목표의 설정방안
역사교육
2000 .04
-
역사교육의 최종 목표와 역사적 통찰력
역사교육
2008 .12
-
이능식의 생애와 역사연구
역사교육
2013 .06
-
드로이젠과 역사주의
韓國史學史學報
2011 .01
-
전근대 국사의 형성과 그 발전
韓國史學史學報
2008 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-014462898