독일 개념사와 새로운 역사학

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the age of postmodernisrn, the spilt between specialized disciplines in historical research is increasingly growing. This crisis of historiography or historical researches is accelerated through the emergence of so-called "new cultural history," which encompasses the historical Anthropology or the history of everyday life. These approaches challenge the modem concept of history that was traditionally based upon the historical totality.
This paper is a theoretical reflection to give a new identity of historical writing in the age of such postmodern spilt. In this context, the German conceptional history, so-called Begriffsgeschichte is very suggestive. A new form of the Begriffsgeschichte was first introduced by Reinhart Koselleck, the coeditor of the Lexicon Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Another form of the new Begriffsgeschichte was developed by Rolf Reichhardt, who was former assistant of Koselleck and the coeditor of Handbuch politisch-sozialer Grundbegriffe in Frankreich. While the latter is concentrated on the social function and effect of the concept. the former is. above all, focused on the temporal structure of concept.
This paper examined how the both forms of Begriffsgeschichte avoid the postmodern crisis of historiography. and at the same time what they suggest to establish a new theoretical and methodological foundation of historiography:
1. The Begriffsgeschichte revises the hypothesis of modern historiography: It denies the ontological thought on the historical reality--one homeogenous and total reality. Instead, the Begriffsgeschichte emphasizes a set of historical realities based upon the differences between three factors--language(word). concept and reality(Sachverhalt). At the same time. the Begriffsgeschichte, nevertheless. aims at the historical totality, because it considers historical totality as norm of historical research or ideal of historical writing.
2. For the coherent reconstruction of various historical realities in the total context. the Begriffsgeschichte analyses. through and in the medium of concept. the historical situation and change in very multidimensional way. Observing the tensional relationship between language and concept. between reality and concept, the Begriffsgeschichte studies not only political and social reality, but also its mental representation: it analyses unique event as well as repeating structure: at the same time it considers continuity and discontinuity between past and present.
3. The purpose of the Begriffsgeschichte is not to establish the objectivity of historical knowledge. but to famulate the objectivity of historical reconstruction. It emphasizes that the objective historical reconstruction would be possible only through the intersubjectivity between the contemporaries in the past and the historians in the present. According to this, understanding the past consists of two factors which is equally important--out perspective which is expressed through theories, methods and terminologies, that is, through our language and the perspective of contemporaries, which is conceptualized through their own language in the historical text.
4. The Begriffsgeschichte shows that the theoretical model of historical writing should not be closed and thus should always allow formulating various historical interests and questions. Koselleck and Reichhardt's perspective is founded on the common theoretical framework which would be summarized as follows: the preprograming function of concept for thinking and concept as indicator and element of political-social reality, However, their interests and questions for the research are different. This characterizes the unique aspect of the Begriffsgeschichte, Owing to this. the Begriffsgeschichte enlarges research field. and in the process it is nowadays possible to communicate the comparative history as well as the history of everyday-life. In spite of all these, however, the Begriffsgeschichte should overcome

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말: 역사 세계의 확장과 역사연구의 포스트모던적 분열
• Ⅱ. 언어, 개념, 사실 사이의 긴장관계
• Ⅲ. 개념의 시간적 다층성과 개념의 사회적 대표성
• Ⅳ. 맺음말
• 〈Abstract〉