메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
배영수 (서울대학교)
저널정보
역사학회 역사학보 歷史學報 第216輯
발행연도
2012.12
수록면
81 - 108 (28page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This essay argues that the human nature is an essential, though neglected, topic to the controversy on "the Rise of the West". William McNeil, Eric Jones or David Landes does not treat the human nature in explicit ways. But they regard European modernity as something achieved by secular and rational men, particularly by those who were in pursuit of economic interests among other things. In other words, homo economicus is the determinant agent that explains "the Rise of the West". The so-called "California School", critics of Eurocentric perspectives, does not properly examine the human nature. Andre Gunder Frank, Kenneth Pomeranz, and Roy Bin Wong have paid attention to structures and environments, such as state systems, world economy or ecology, but they make light of human agency in history. When they stress similar patterns of development up to the early 19th century, these critics tend to describe traditional Chinese in terms of homo economicus. What"s more, Dipesch Charkrabarty, who attempts to shape an alternative to Eurocentric perspectives, does not explore the human nature, taking much the same position as the "California School". Therefore, Eurocentric historians share their idea of human nature with their critics. In their idea, centered around homo economicus, however, the human nature is treated as something universal and transhistorical. Such an idea does not help explain the diversity of modern history.

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말
II. 유럽 중심주의자들의 일원론
III. “캘리포니아 학파”의 무관심
IV. 차크라바티의 딜레마
V. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (44)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-911-000603768