한국 현대 역사교육 담론장의 형성과 '민주주의' 담론의 전개

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper focuses on the fact that the discourse of "democracy" has occupied a very important position in the formation of the field of history education from the liberation of Korea to the present day. It aims to identify how "democracy" was utilized in the discourse field of history education in each period, and what impact it had on the discourse field of history education. It also aims to identify the common characteristics of the discourse of history education under the banner of "democracy". To this end, it seeks to clarify how the term "democracy" has been utilized by which actors, in what meaning, and in what context in the midst of the formation and expansion of the modern history education field in Korea. In the process, it also examined the changes in the discourse of "historical thinking" which was directly or indirectly linked to the discourse of "democracy".
This paper understands the history of history education as a process of compromise and struggle for actors participating in the discourse field of history education to gain the power to refract external discourses through the logic of the discourse field by seeking the unique logic of the field as the field of history education is formed. It reconstructed the history of history education by dividing Korean modern history into four periods based on the changes in the actors participating in the field of history education, the changes in the way actors participate in the field, and the changes in the nature of the discourse of "democracy" dealt with in the field.
Emerging from the ashes of Japanese colonial rule, the newly liberated Korea embarked on a journey to establish a democratic republic. "Democracy" and "democratic republic" became the guiding principles for shaping this nascent nation. Within the field of history education, the term "democracy" was invoked by various actors, regardless of their political leanings, to legitimize their respective claims and aspirations. This interplay between diverse interpretations of "democracy" within the history education sphere ignited a fervent debate surrounding the fundamental question: "What kind of identity should history education cultivate in students as members of a democratic republic?“
Within this intricate interplay of power and resistance, "democracy" emerged as a discourse that could be wielded for both domination and subversion. History education discourse, when intertwined with "democracy," became a tool that could either justify the rule of authoritarian regimes or serve as a weapon to challenge their legitimacy. Simultaneously, the history education field has witnessed a growing diversity of participants, fostering a multifaceted and multivocal landscape. However, despite this increasing richness, the discussions within the field have largely revolved around the notion that history education should serve to cultivate a desirable national identity. Additionally, individual participants have actively sought to shape public sentiment in support of their respective narratives, often prioritizing public opinion over professional expertise when determining history education policy.
In history education field, "democracy" has served as a ubiquitous slogan, yet its inherent abstractness has rendered it challenging to translate into a tangible goal for actual history education. This abstract "democracy" has been readily appropriated by various actors with diverse intentions, ultimately leading to the pursuit of specific values that often contradict the core tenets of democracy itself, such as diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, "democracy" has exhibited a tendency towards dependence and exclusivity, only acquiring meaning through the establishment of opposing narratives. This approach has been further complicated by its intertwining with a non-historical presentist approach to history.
While the recently emerged discourse of "democratic history education" has critiqued existing history education practices and championed concepts like "controversy," "diversity," student engagement, and teacher autonomy, it too harbors inherent contradictions that undermine its validity as an academic discourse. The pursuit of specific values within this framework has resulted in the perpetuation of abstractness, exclusivity, and non-historical presentist attitudes, ultimately reinforcing the subordination of the history education field, much like the "democracy" discourses of the past.
In contrast, the discourse of "historical thinking" emerged as a strategic maneuver to establish history education's distinct field in terms of historicity and value reflection. This approach stemmed from the realization that attempts to differentiate history education from historiography based on value orientation often resulted in an entanglement with nationalism. However, in the 1990s, history education exhibited a tendency towards specialization and depoliticization, becoming preoccupied with the cognitive processes and subcategories of historians in the pursuit of history's existential value. To address these limitations, the discourse of "diversity" emerged, advocating for a postmodernist approach that emphasized the examination of how history is constructed under the influence of historians' ideologies, encapsulated in methodologies such as "critical reading." Yet, the "diversity" discourse once again raised the issue of the epistemological equivalence of all claims. In the process of grappling with this challenge, recent studies have delved into the metacognitive dimension of "historical thinking," which entails understanding, reflecting upon, and recognizing the potential for error in the historical interpretations and values held by oneself and others. These contemporary research trends on "historical thinking" offer novel insights into how "democracy" should be approached in history education and how history education can effectively contribute to the cultivation of a democratic society.
History education serves as a powerful tool for questioning and critically examining one's own context, drawing upon the insights gleaned from historical knowledge. In this context, history education can play a pivotal role in fostering "democracy" by prompting us to interrogate the very essence of democracy, shedding light on its historical trajectory, and critically evaluating its inherent potential for error and blindness. The endeavor to comprehend the belief systems of those who differ from ourselves is a valuable experience that history education can uniquely impart, and this pursuit of understanding the other forms the very bedrock of democracy. Moreover, by delving into the contexts of countless individuals from the past, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the situated nature of our own beliefs. Only when we can look at the past strangely can we also look at the present strangely. The conclusion of this paper underscores the possibility of seeking a distinctive logic of history education rooted in a historical perspective. It is my hope that this study will serve as a catalyst for enhancing autonomy within the field of history education and stimulating a more nuanced discourse on its role in shaping democratic societies.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 = 1
• 제1절 문제 제기 및 연구 방향 = 1
• 제2절 선행연구 검토 및 연구 방법과 내용 = 3
• 제2장 '민주주의' 국가 건설을 위한 역사교육론의 형성(1945~1955) = 14
• 제1절 '민주주의'자'들'의 역사교육론 경합 = 14
• 1. 해방 직후 역사교육 담론의 지형과 특징 = 14
• 2. '미국식 민주주의' 교육과 사회생활과의 도입 = 18
• 3. '민족적 민주주의'와 '민족 통합'을 위한 역사교육 = 29
• 4. '진보적 민주주의'와 '과학적' 역사교육 = 42
• 5. 타협과 경쟁의 결과로서의 역사과 교수요목 = 51
• 제2절 '반공방일' 민주주의를 위한 역사교육의 성립 = 62
• 1. '민족적 민주주의'의 국가 이데올로기화 = 62
• 2. '민주적 민족교육'의 '일민주의'화 = 74
• 3. 학교 교육의 반공방일화 = 79
• 4. 반공방일을 위한 역사교육의 등장 = 93
• 제3장 역사교육 담론장의 형성을 위한 타협과 저항(1955~1981) = 101
• 제1절 '역사교육 연구자'의 등장과 새로운 역사교육 논의의 전개 = 101
• 1. 역사교육연구회의 창립과 역사교육 논의의 활성화 = 101
• 2. 419혁명과 새로운 '민주공화국'을 위한 역사교육의 모색 = 115
• 제2절 새로운 역사교육 논의의 굴절과 타협 = 125
• 1. 군사 정부의 역사교육 정책과 역사교육 연구자들의 참여 = 125
• 2. '민족주체성'을 위한 역사교육 체제의 형성 = 142
• 3. '한국적 민주주의'를 위한 교육 체제의 성립 = 155
• 4. 동상이몽 속 '국사교육 강화' 정책 = 162
• 제3절 반성으로서의 '역사적 사고' 담론의 등장 = 180
• 1. 역사교육 연구자들의 '국사교육 강화' 정책 비판 = 180
• 2. 역사교육 연구자들의 '역사적 사고' 논의 = 187
• 제4장 참여자의 다양화와 담론장의 자율성 확보를 위한 노력(1981~2002) = 197
• 제1절 '여론'의 개입과 저항 = 197
• 1. '한국적 민주주의'와 '국사광복운동' = 197
• 2. 여론과 권력의 활용: 1980년대 고대사 파동 = 202
• 3. '역사적 사고력'의 학교 역사교육 목적화 = 215
• 4. '민주주의'와 '현대사' 논쟁의 서막: 1994년 현대사 파동 = 221
• 제2절 전국 단위 역사교사 단체의 등장과 역사교육운동 = 229
• 1. '올바른 역사'를 위한 역사교육운동 = 229
• 2. '역사적 사고' 담론의 전문화와 탈정치화 = 245
• 3. '포스트모더니즘'을 내세운 '다양성' 담론의 형성 = 252
• 4. 전국역사교사모임의 대안적 역사교육론의 전개 = 262
• 제5장 역사교육 담론장의 정쟁화(2002~2023) = 280
• 제1절 '민주주의 전쟁'으로서의 '역사 전쟁' = 280
• 1. '자유민주주의' 담론과 한국 근현대사 교과서 파동 = 280
• 2. 2007 개정 교육과정의 사문화 = 295
• 3. 교학사 한국사 교과서 파동 = 300
• 4. 역사 교과서 재국정화와 반국정화 투쟁 = 320
• 제2절 '민주주의 역사교육' 담론의 등장과 새로운 '역사적 사고' 논의 = 348
• 1. '민주주의 역사교육' 담론의 등장과 비판 = 348
• 2. 새로운 '역사적 사고' 논의의 모색 = 358
• 제6장 결론 = 367
• 참고문헌 = 381
• ABSTRACT = 430