뉴스레터

Examining the Problems Resulting from Process of Establishing National Histories

Countries around the world are striving to systematize and solidify their respective national histories. There is no doubt that this phenomenon owes itself to the concept of national identity, crucial to the modern nation-state system. The special research project entitled "Historical Consciousness of Multi-National and Multi-Ethnic States: History of Conflict and the Search for Co-Existence" looks at the preference of a singular national identity by multi-national and multi-ethnic states seeking to establish their respective national histories. Such efforts frequently lead to historical distortions and serious conflicts, attesting to the importance of this research project.

In today's East Asia too, there are signs that the question of historical understanding may not be confined to the realm of academia and may blow over to become a point of actual political contention. At the heart of this problem lie the nation-centered historical studies of Korea, China, and Japan. China's self-formulation as a unified multi-ethnic country is particularly problematic and is a source of intense conflict. While this formulation is understandable given that it is based on the need for China to accept its multi-ethnic reality and promote patriotism. However, the problem is that China's efforts have resulted in historical distortions, which in turn, aggravate historical tension.

The fact is, it is impossible to expect the complete exclusion of present values in the human understanding of past events. However, today's historians know how dangerous it is to understand the past from the viewpoint of the present and use the past to create self-centered values. Nonetheless, as China's attempt demonstrates, the possibility of conflict does not seem to be a cause for hesitation.

The special research project on the historical consciousness of multi-national, multi-ethnic states was launched to examine East Asia's political environment and the issue of historical consciousness. Researchers wanted to look at the process by which many multi-national, multi-ethnic countries around the world have established their respective national identities and problems that have ensued. To be more exact, this study was not intended to be limited to "prototypical" multi-national, multi-ethnic countries. Rather, the project started from the understanding that no country in the world is ethnically homogenous. National and ethnic confusion is a common phenomenon in every country of the world.

Emergence of the Issue of Multi-Nation-Ness and Multi-Ethnicity and the History of Concealment

Accordingly, this study set about to cover not only prototypically muti-national and multi-ethnic countries such as the United States, Mexico, Russia, and Spain, but also countries like Germany and Frances, which founded on the value of ethnic homogeneity. No modern nation-state is free of the issues of multi-nation-ness and multi-ethnicity, and Germany and France are certainly no exception. Furthermore, with the large influx of immigrants, the issues of multi-nation-ness and multi-ethnicity have become inevitable realties for Germany and France. The two countries are particularly noteworthy because they are experiencing the emergence of absorption and assimilation ideologies from the majority ethnic group as well as criticisms against such efforts at integration and because both nations are seeking alternatives to deal with these problems.

Based on these premises, the special research project focused on the emergence and history of multi-national, multi-ethnic issues in each country as well as the history of concealment, which was made possible through a national ideology and the unifying power of the nation-state. What the countries treated in this project hold in common is that they have experienced particularly pronounced manifestations of the issues of multi-nation-ness and multi-ethnicity that persist to this very day. Individual case studies focused not only on how each country systematized and organized its national history in a multi-national, multi-ethnic environment but also on the present-day problems that a givem country is facing and recent attempts at resolving them.

Needless to say, countries around the world still aim to become a "typical" but powerful "nation-state" and insist on a singular national identity. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say how long today's "nation-state" system can maintain itself; or rather, how much longer historical studies can serve to justify the " nation-state" format. A cautious diagnosis is that there are signs that the stature of the nation-state system is being threatened by multi-national and multi-cultural realties. Moreover, if the historians of the past come to be perceived as having been in service to the establishment of the internal identity of the nation-state, it is unlikely that today's historians will go down the same path.

The "Achievement" of the Critique on "National History"

While justifications for the nation-state system and the single-state historical paradigm are losing ground, it is not easy to propose alternatives. The individual researchers that participated in the special research project under discussion do report that there are growing expectations for pluralist identities and "open republics" founded on such identities in many parts of the world. Nevertheless, the future still remains uncertain. Some forecast the formation of genuine pluralist systems and co-existence within such systems rather than just the mere eradiation of majority ethnic groups' hegemonic dominance. Others are less optimistic, voicing their concern that co-existence will be in name only and new forms of discrimination and exclusion may emerge.

Predicting the future is no easy task, but that does not mean the special research project yielded nothing of value. The goal of the grand project of modern historical studies in a multi-national "nation-state" has been the establishment of a cohesive internal identity. Modern historical studies have, on the surface, promoted the ideology of the co-existence of multiple ethnic groups. However, what has become an irrefutable fact is that the "nation-state" has served as a tool of oppression and monopoly for the ruling majority group. The individual studies comprising the special research project endeavored to demonstrate how beneath the façade of multi-nation-ness and multi-ethnicity, the "nation-state"-centered historical studies have functioned within the logic of exclusion and domination and how such logic is creating a history of conflict in the present day.

From the outset, the participating researchers made a conscious decision to actively exchange ideas and opinions and converge on a particular critical outlook; they did not want the project to be too technical or a mere collection of individual. disparate case studies. The researchers endeavored to reveal the illusions propagated by national histories. As a result, the project was able to accomplish the intended goal of problematizing national histories. It is true that this special research project did not provide coverage of new forms of historical studies that have emerged in various countries around the world. Such coverage must remain a task for the future for the time being.