2004 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
The Structure and Its Reformation of the Korea's Criticism against the History Education of Japan
| Project/Area Number |
15530605
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Education on school subjects and activities
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Ryukoku University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
O-JUNG Kwon Ryukoku University, Faculty of Intercultural Communication, Professor, 国際文化学部, 教授 (30288641)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2003 – 2004
|
| Keywords | Reciprocity / Egocentricity / Universal Utility / National Utility |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The Korea's criticism against the history education of Japan, which has been established through 1980s to 2000s, is inclined to egocentricity rather than reciprocity, and to national utility rather than universal utility. In addition, it relies on the information provided by the mass media other than the result of the academic achievement And its structure is preferentially based on the subjective judgment rather than the recognition of the correlation between the facts. The criticism made thorough 1990s to 2000s places more weight on reciprocity and universal utility, compared to that of 1980s, but is still far from reaching the basic structural reformation.
Throughout the criticism implemented in such structure, it is hard to expect Korea and Japan to have an international communication in search far the solution of the history education-history text book problem. Further, it is less likely to happen that the discord occurred by history education-history text book problem between two nations would promote from a mere public opinion to a sincere dispute in such atmosphere. Especially, Korea's public opinion has a strong tendency to look at the problem between the two nations as a single issue, hence, if the history education- history text book problem occurs they would look at it with that singular frame. In that case they do not discern the bias and the real, and expand the indiscriminate censure and criticism upon them. In these circumstances, the essential and academic debate about the history education-history textbook problem can hardly be realized.
|
