earticle

영어

This paper reviewed the theoretical background of the two competing methodologies, i.e. the theory on the universality of the world history and the theory of Asiatic specificity, with focus on Marxist interpretation. In particular, this paper attempted to review the awareness of universality and specificity and acceptance of the Asiatic mode of production, which were mentioned in previous studies as important factors in the formation of historical research methodologies, in phases, and thus internally analyze their critical mind. The awareness of universality and specificity started from the understanding of the concepts of universality and specificity, the method of applying abstract methodologies, and the interpretation of the correlation between the history of mankind and natural environment. The universalists, including Baek Nam-un, who regarded specificity as non-essential, emphasize the abstraction of universality, and understood the influence of the natural world in a limited way. However, specificists like Lee Cheong-won argued that specificity is also essential, and specificity must be abstracted for the sake of social practices, and regarded the influence of nature as important in certain stages of the history of mankind. The positions of these two camps were reflected in the process of accepting the theory on the Asiatic mode of production, which had a strong influence on the academic circles of East Asian thought in the 1930's. The former paid attention to the fact that it is possible to enhance the awareness of discrimination of Asia from the viewpoint of universality, understood the Asiatic mode of production as the Asiatic form of a feudal society, and had a reservation to acceptance of the theory. However, the latter regarded it as a theory that most accurately described the realities of Asian societies, including Joseon, most accurately from the viewpoint of specificity, and advocated active acceptance of the theory.