Self-Detachment in Historical Perspective: A Unique Tradition - Excerpts from 'East Asian Connected History' (1)

Viewing East Asia as a single unit of thought and attempting to relativize national-centrism through self-reflection has been a concept proposed and gradually solidified since the 1980s. Consequently, many scholars have begun to argue that East Asian history is not merely a collection of individual national histories but is important as a regional history. The goal of regional history is to align each country's history with reality and engage in exchanges with world history, preventing the infinite expansion of the importance of national history and achieving the effect of self-reflection. We hope to grasp individual events through the perspectives of mutual connection and comparison, acknowledge the history of aggression and mutual dependence, and ultimately achieve a historical consciousness that seeks peace and prosperity in the East Asian region. Why does East Asia need 'regional history'? In recent years, many scholars have discussed East Asia from various perspectives, but the most noteworthy is the perspective of self-reflection. In South Korea, the perspective of viewing East Asia as a single unit and relativizing national-centrism was first proposed in the fields of literature and history. During the Cold War, intellectuals who dreamed of the unification of North and South Korea and pursued national literature, on the one hand, relativized the nationalist trend that was prevalent in South Korea, and on the other hand, connected with world literature by combining it with the Third World theory. However, this Third World theory initially had South America, which was far away, as its ally. It was not until the early 1980s that they began to pay attention to the neighboring East Asian region. In the field of history, scholars who shared this perspective of self-reflection each began to explore how to effectively develop this historical view. By the 1990s, as the concept of East Asia began to gain momentum in various academic fields, the necessity of viewing East Asia as a single unit and conducting research on East Asian regional history was once again proposed. Additionally, the success of industrialization in South Korea and surrounding neighboring countries, known as the 'East Asian Miracle,' and the collapse of the Cold War system, which divided East Asia into two camps with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, further promoted the development of East Asian regional history research. Therefore, to some extent, the goal of viewing East Asian history as regional history has already begun to be implemented. This is a self-reflection to align South Korea's history and reality with world history and engage in exchanges, while preventing the infinite expansion of the importance of national history. From this starting point, by acknowledging these histories of aggression and plunder, cooperation and mutual dependence, we can expect the realization of a historical perspective that seeks peace and prosperity in the East Asian region. Of course, some factors that hinder regional peace and prosperity are not within East Asia but come from the world system outside East Asia. However, merely staying at this level of criticism of Western-centrism does not meet our expectations. Then, without the mediation of regional history, can we directly connect national history with world history and relativize national history? East Asian countries have so far shaped their national historical memory through historical education that divides national history and world history. However, whether it is the Eurocentrism of world history or the national-centrism of national history, both take the establishment of a nation-state based on the European model as the goal of their history. Europe and Japan, as nation-states, expanded outward and became empires, while the peoples subjected to these empires each resisted and attempted to establish their own nation-states. Although the methods of establishing their own nation-states were vastly different, the logic that constituted their history was based on an evolutionary view of civilization. According to this view of history, modern civilization developed only according to a single standard, denied other pluralities, and unconsciously justified and internalized the history of oppressing others. Therefore, we East Asians naturally ignored neighboring countries in East Asia and were absent from this scene of self-detachment. To escape this trap of the view of civilization, we could of course rewrite national history and world history based on other views of history. However, here we have adopted a more novel framework of regional history. While developing regional history, we believe that we can more effectively achieve balanced development of historical awareness. There is another reason why East Asia needs its own regional history. The self-detachment historical view mentioned earlier does not only originate from the modern European nation-state view of history but is largely derived from the unique historical traditions of East Asia. First, East Asia established states earlier than any other region in the world and maintained strong continuity. This made the national identity, which is the basis of national-centrism, even more solid. Second, this unique historical view and worldview, after being formed, were gradually shared by the various countries of East Asia. As early as the Tang Dynasty, the various countries of East Asia absorbed the imperial system of the Tang Empire as the prototype of their own countries. In the process of absorption, they naturally shared the Hua-Yi ideology that supported the imperial system. Each country internalized this Hua-Yi ideology, regarding itself as the Central Kingdom and looking down on neighboring countries as barbarians. Therefore, not only China but also Korea, Japan, and Vietnam hoped to become empires that commanded many tributary states. The reason why the story of heroes who aspired to conquer the world and rebuild the empire, 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms,' could become a bestseller in various East Asian countries is precisely because of this. Of course, the desire to become an empire was quite different in each country. If we focus on the 17th and 18th centuries, when the transition to modernity was taking place, it was the period when the territory of the Chinese Empire was at its largest, and Japan and Vietnam also began to lead the surrounding tributary states and strengthen their imperial consciousness. This imperial consciousness was recorded in the historical compilations of each country. In particular, in the 'History of Great Japan' (18th to 19th centuries), this imperial consciousness was particularly prominent. The 'History of Great Japan' imitated the 'Biographies of the Barbarians' in the Chinese official histories. The 'Biographies of the Barbarians' in the book not only included Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla but also included the Chinese dynasties of Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming, and regarded them as vassals, that is, barbarians. Of course, it also included Ezo, the Jurchens, and the Ryukyu Islands. This reflects the idea that Japan is a divine country blessed by the gods and ruled by the emperor, the son of the gods. The historical books of Vietnam also regarded neighboring countries as vassal states based on the Hua-Yi ideology, but not to the extent of Japan. From this, it can be seen that the tendency of Japan's imperialism in modern times did not appear only in modern times. On the other hand, the Joseon Dynasty also had this imperial consciousness, bestowing official positions on the chiefs of the Jurchen tribes and the island lords of Tsushima, but ultimately did not take the path of imperialism. Based on this long-shared tradition, East Asian countries absorbed the prototype of expansionist capitalism and nation-states and, under the mutual influence of each other, today's national-centrism in East Asia and the phenomenon of looking down on neighboring countries are more serious than in any other region in the world. The recent conflicts in historical recognition between South Korea, China, and Japan are caused by the increase in cultural and economic exchanges, which has attracted our attention. This is not a problem that can be solved by simply criticizing modern nationalism but should be re-examined from the perspective of self-reflection within East Asia. The reason why East Asia needs its own regional history is precisely because of this. However, we should not regard East Asia as an exception or a special case. With the trend of globalization, the flow and connection of logistics, capital, and labor are rapidly increasing. On the one hand, the market is moving towards globalization, and on the other hand, it is causing a crisis of consciousness for nation-states, prompting these nation-states to respond with regionalization. The EU (European Union) is the primary example. This trend of regionalization naturally includes East Asia. Have East Asians not gradually moved towards regional integration through the transitional framework of 'ASEAN+3'? Among those who criticize the national-centrism of national history, some advocate the abolition of the history of a single country. These people, based on the establishment of the EU and the 'History of Europe' (1992) compiled from the common history of Europe, argue that the era of nation-states has ended. However, the writing of regional history is not to replace national history but to help us form a dual identity by adding the history of neighboring regions. This is a globalized era's idea for those who think and act by including regional identity in addition to national identity. In this regard, East Asia indeed needs its own regional history. The writing of regional history that has emerged with the trend of regionalization not only allows us to re-examine national history but also allows us to rewrite world history. In the 19th century, the world histories or universal histories written from a Eurocentric perspective were nothing more than European civilization histories. In the 1880s, the first world history to be translated into East Asia, Swinton's (W. Swinton) 'Outline of World History' and other similar world histories introduced by the Japanese claimed that 'history should record the deeds of civilized people, so only the deeds of Caucasians are worthy of being recorded in history,' and 'non-Caucasian races have no such thing as history.' Although such world histories have undergone repeated criticism and revision, this evolutionary view of civilization has been retained. Therefore, the uniqueness of various regional civilizations, which were once continuously denied, gradually came to be noticed after World War II. Now, with the trend of regionalization, there is more possibility for world histories with multiple perspectives than the previously Eurocentric, monolithic world histories. From this point of view, East Asian regional history has even more significance than European regional history.