Historiography of Korea

First of all, it is noteworthy that the activities in the fields of history and literature in this era are much more diverse and active than in the previous era. And these activities were possible from a deeper understanding of Chinese characters. During this era, Idu(吏讀), which can be found in Silla's Hyangga literature, or Hangeul, which was introduced after the Joseon Dynasty, was not commonly used as a means of expressing the idea, and almost all of the activities by Chinese characters are the main characters of the era. The overall characteristic of historical and literary thought of this era lies in gradually becoming aware of the independence of the nation from Chinese-centered thinking at first. This change inevitably occurred due to the development of Korean society and the change in the domestic situation.[2]

In terms of historical history, in Goryeo, the compilation of the Sillok(實錄) has been implemented since the beginning. In addition to the compilation project, other Historical books (史書) were frequently compiled and published. Among them, Kim Bu-sik's <Samguk sagi(三國史記)> (volume 50), compiled in the 23rd year of King Injong (1145), is the longest history of the Korean history books currently handed down. However, this <Samguk sagi> has been criticized for largely reflecting Kim Bu-sik's Sadaejuui(事大主義).[3] Korea can deal with Chinese-centered historical narratives everywhere through actual articles in the <Samguk sagi> As a result, it should be evaluated that national independence is lacking. However, what should be noted in Korea is whether such Historical thinking(史觀) was made up of the faults of the editors of the <Samguk yusa>. Korea should grasp the spirit of the times before blaming Kim Bu-sik. In other words, until then, ideologically, the deep influence of Chinese culture and the Chinese way of thinking were a general trend throughout Korean society. Therefore, the historical thought(史學思想) shown in <Samguk sagi> is also the product of this situation of the times.[4]

Subsequently, as the situation of the times changed, there was a great change in historical thought. In Korea, a specific example can be seen in Ilyeon(一然)'s <Samguk yusa(三國遺事)> compiled during the reign of King Chungryeol (1274-1308). By this time, the conditions of the times had already changed significantly. The Song(宋) Dynasty, founded by the Han(漢) people, was destroyed, and instead, the Mongols, the northern people, emerged as the rulers of the continent, wielding considerable influence on the political and ideological fields of the Goryeo Dynasty. It was only here that the Han culture(漢)-centered history emerged from the thinking centered on Korean culture. The national consciousness to protect the Korean people in the face of the military and political oppression of Mongolia appeared in the description of history. For example, the Dangun myth(檀君神話) shown at the beginning of <Samguk yusa> was also a result of efforts to find national independence.[5]

This ideological trend is generally seen in the history and literature sectors of the late Goryeo Dynasty. For example, the changes in the spirit of the times can be seen through the writings of Lee Seung-Hyu(李承休)'s <Jewang ungi(帝王韻紀)> and Lee Gyu-bo(李奎報)'s <Dongmyeong Wangpyeon>(東明王篇)>. In the historical field of this era, numerous books such as <Pyeonnyeon Tongrok(編年通錄)>, <Gogeumrok(古今錄)>, and <Bonjo Pyeonnyeon Gangmok(本朝編年綱目)> was published, but, regrettably, that it is not possible to examine the specific historical thought because it is not currently handed down.[6]

The historical ideas of the early Joseon Dynasty appear specifically at the history editing consciousness(編史意識). Along with the compilation of the Annals of the Dynasty, Gwanchan(官撰) and Sachan(私撰), including the compilation of <Goryeosa>, appeared prominently from the standpoint of national history. Various historical books were compiled as the national consciousness(國史意識) grew after the national crisis caused by the invasion of Khitan and Mongolia during the Goryeo Dynasty. In the Joseon Dynasty, with the growth of cultural consciousness and the stimulation of Chinese historical books, awareness of national history grew significantly, and each royal generation published <Dongguk Sarak(東國史略)>, <Samguksajeolyo(三國史節要)>, <Dongguk Tonggam(東國通鑑)>, <Dongguk Yeoji Seung-ram(東國輿地勝覽)>.In particular, <Dongguk Tonggam> has great significance as a national history book.[9]

The influence of Chinese historical books on the compilation of national history books was significant. This is well represented in the preface of <Dongguk Tonggam>. After the founding of the country, the three kings(三王) succeeded, <Goryeosa(高麗史)> and <Goreyosa Jeolyo(高麗史節要)> were carried out by striving for literary power. King Sejo paid attention to the celebration and told his subjects, "Although there is a ritual in the east, there is no sense of long-length Tonggam comparable to <Jachi Tonggam(資治通鑑)>, and Lee Geuk-Don's preface, which corrected history, clearly shows the sense of Korean history editing consciousness. In addition, Seo Geo-Jeong's article on <Dongguk Tonggam> also cited examples of <Tonggam>, <Tonggam Gangmok(通鑑綱目)> by Zhu Xi(朱憙), and <Tonggam Jeolyo(通鑑節要)> by Yoo Seom(劉剡), and the history of the Korean country is also a Danggun like a Dangyo(唐堯). During the reign of King Taejo, "Han Go-jo(漢高祖) collected the books of the Jin(秦) Dynasty, and Tae-jong of the Dang Dynasty bought a Su Dynasty(隋)'s books to compile various historical books, and in the case of <Dongguk Tonggam>, Beomrye(凡例) copied <Zizhi Tongjian>.[10] Seo Geo-Jeong also revealed almost the same content in an article posted in <Samguksajeolyo(三國史節要)>.[11]

In China, there was a great interest in <Zizhi Tongjian>. Kang Yong(江鎔)'s <Tonggam Jeolyo> has been widely read.[12] Choi Hang(崔恒), who had a great contribution to his studies during the reign of King Sejo, even emphasized, "Tonggam is the finale of history and should be known first." Tonggam was compiled with instructive intentions, meaning that it was bright like Chido(治道), and the instructive intention played a strong role in the compilation of various books in the early Joseon Dynasty. In an article posted by Jeong In-ji after he finished <Goryeo-sa>, he said that the king's examination of the rise and fall in the past was to admonish the future, so he made <Goryeo-sa>. King Sejo pointed out that the crown prince's education was a national ambassador, and then ordered Yang Seong-ji(梁誠之) to take an extensive look at the Annals of the King and the History of the King to teach the crown prince. In addition, Seo Geo-jeong(徐居正)'s words that the rise and fall in the past should show the good and bad points as they can be well understood from the attitude of the king or those who have held the important position of history compilation. In the early days of the founding of the country, it can be seen that Gwon-Geun(權近) edited history from a strict, instructive, and subjective position to reward righteousness and eradicate disrupting order even when he edited <Dongguk Saryak> based on Kim Bu-sik's <Samguk saki>.[13]

One of the reasons why historical ideas have been strongly emphasized since the foundation of the Joseon Dynasty is that History editing policies(編史意識) have strengthened, boosting the ethos of Sa Pung(士風), and emphasizing orthodoxy(正統論), resulting in strong historical consciousness. There was a reflection on the fact that Korean people are familiar with Chinese history but are not familiar with Korean history. Seo Geo-Jeong argued that people did not know much about Korean history until the competition during the reign of King Seongjong, so <Dongguk Tonggam> should be created to enlighten people. and pointed out that despite Joseon's long history, he did not have a history book. In particular, Seo Geo-jeong's remark that he should know the history of Korea since he was born in Korea, is a good indication of Korea's sense of compilation of history books.[14]

Indeed, after the founding of the Joseon Dynasty, as the historical consciousness of national history was emphasized, history editing consciousness was also strong. Therefore, special books such as <Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty> and various Tongsa and Period History in Pyeonnyeon and Gangmokchae(綱目體), <Yeok Dae Byeong Yo>, <Hae Dong Seong See Rok>, and <Dongguk Yeoji Seunram> were also compiled. History education also became important and began to show enthusiasm for national history compilation and education. As part of strengthening national history education in the 9th year of King Sejo's reign, Yang Seong-Ji selected 20 Yemun Gyeomgwan(藝文兼官) and divided them into four parts, some of them into <Juyeok(周易)>, <Yeok Hak Gae Mong(易學啓蒙)>, <Seongri Daejeon(性理大全)>, part two of <Spring and Autumn Annals(春秋)>, <Zuo Zhuan(左傳)>, <Ho Zhuan(胡傳)>, <Sagi(史記)>,<Book of Han(前漢書)>, The third part was in charge of <Tonggamgangmok>, <Tonggamjeolpyeon>, <Songwonjeolyo(宋元節要)>, and the fourth part was in charge of <Samguksagi>, <Dongguk Sarack(東國史略)>, and <Goryeo Jeonsa(高麗全史)>, regardless of field, 4 books(四書), <Sijeon(詩傳)>,<Suhjeon(書傳)> <Book of Rites(禮記)> were specially made to be familiar, and let's go on the 1st day and 15th day. Therefore, not only Chinese history but also Korean history strongly insisted on working hard in the same way.[15] This strengthening of national history compilation consciousness and education also recorded the contents of Gojoseon, such as Dangun mythology, in <Sejong Silokjiriji> or <Dongguk Tonggam>, to strengthen national history and develop the historical narrative. After the Imjin War and the Byungja War, as Western forces approached, and knowledge of the new world came through the Qing Dynasty, the tendency to emphasize national history became more pronounced in the sense that practical scholars should emerge and know about Korea.[16]

A series of advanced scholars in the late Joseon Dynasty struggled to resolve various contradictions in realistic political and social systems. It is not that there were no advanced thinkers in the previous era, but it was not as motivated as this period. In any case, some of these thinkers in the late Joseon Dynasty sought to solve it while they were in government, and some sought their ways while living in rural. However, under the conditions of this era, there could be no idea that violated Confucian ideology(儒敎理念). The standard for resolving certain contradictions has always been Confucian. Since the 18th century, when the influence of Western studies and a new perception of the Qing dynasty's culture were embedded, it was not necessarily based on Confucianism, but most of the ideas could not leave the Confucian ideology.[17] Therefore, the desire for a new ideal state and society began with criticism of reality by the Confucian ideal world. And this criticism of reality has often sought rationality from a historical perspective.[18]

Pre-modern history was autonomous, and its significance could be found. By extension, the historical consciousness of the late Joseon Dynasty was also autonomous.[19] Reality is not always satisfactory. Moreover, this was even more so in the position of trying to achieve Gwangjeong(匡正) by facing the contradiction. Historical research is always critical of today's scientific methodology. Even if understand the trend of the times positively, it begins with criticism of the facts inherent in it. Moreover, the historical perspective of the late Joseon Dynasty could not leave this criticism. In addition, a series of advanced scholars in the late Joseon Dynasty were independent. It was also called rediscovery of the self, and it tried to solve all problems from an independent perspective. It stands straight from the conventional side attitude. With this idea, the perception of Joseon's history and geography has been renewed.[20]

In Korea, historical consciousness occurred a lot during the period of national awakening. Whether the concept of nation is established or not at this time occurred at an independent time when the self was strongly recognized, even if it was a separate matter. This example can be found in the mid-Goryeo period, which had an invasion of the northern race, in the early Joseon period, which was the period of establishment of the new system, and in the mid-Joseon period, which struggled with invasion from two immigrants from the north and south. Moreover, not to mention intellectual thinkers before and after the 18th century, who were struggling to resolve realistic contradictions before and after the Enlightenment, it was also urgent. Of course, this historical consciousness can be one of the characteristics of the times. Therefore, in some periods, historical books that can represent the sense of historical consciousness came out. The late Joseon Dynasty was no exception.[21]

First of all, famous historians who compiled famous historical books are Ahn Jung-bok(安鼎福) who wrote <Dongsa Gangmok(東史綱目)>, Lee Geung-ik(李肯翊) who wrote <Yeongnyeosil Gisul(燃藜室記述)>, and Han Chi-yoon(韓致奫) who wrote <Haedong Yeoksa(海東繹史)>.[22] In addition, famous scholars who influenced them were Lee Ik(李瀷), Lim Sang-Deok(林象德), Yoon Seong-sang(尹衡聖), Lee Deok-mu(李德懋), Cho Gyeong-nam(趙慶男), Yoo Deuk-gong(柳得恭), Hong Yang-ho(洪良浩), Hong Seok-ju(洪奭周), and Jeong Yak-yong(丁若鏞). Most of the so-called Positive school(實學派) in the late Joseon Dynasty can be said to be historical parties, they studied history not by simply autonomous historical views, but to face and criticize reality with history. It was not a passive historical awareness, but an active historicism position. At the same time, they tried to objectively examine history. Han Chi-yoon's <Haedong Yeoksa>, which wanted to project Korean history only with Chinese or Japanese data, was the same as Ahn Jung-bok's <Dongsa Gangmok>, which established an independent Korean history system, and Lee Geung-ik's <Yeongyeosil Gisul>. History must have value as science.[23]

The description of facts is not the only thing that is history. Each historical book of the late Joseon Dynasty had its characteristics. As a representative example, <Dongsa Gangmok> was the Tongsa(通史) of Gangmok(綱目), <Yeongyeosil Gisul> was the short history of the end of the article, and <Haedong Yeoksa(海東繹史)> was the Tongsa of Gijeon(紀傳).[24] In addition, Lim Sang-Deok(林象德)'s <Dongsa Hoegang(東史會綱)> and Yoon Seong-seong's <Joya Cheomjae(朝野僉載)> are Yasa(野史), and Yu Deuk-gong has established a personal view due to the history of Balhae(渤海), which was founded by Goguryeo's migrants.[25] in the past. When they studied and compiled history, they did not only recognize the facts but wanted to find true historical facts. If the new academic style of the late Joseon Dynasty is called seeking due diligence or Gujin(求眞), such research methods and spirit can be easily found in them. It is more evident in the opinions of <Goi-pyeon(考異篇)> and <Haedong Yeoksa> in <Dongsa Gangmok>, as well as in the geographical evidence in <Balhaego(渤海考)> by Yoo Deuk-gong. At the same time, their spirit is working intensely for them. It was intended to systematically understand Korean history and reorganize its system properly. The longitudinal chapter of its history also came from here, and the analysis of historical facts also originated from here.[26]

The new perception of Korean history they pioneered is not only acceptable from today's point of view but also enlightened. This is because they dealt with historical research scientifically and objectively. In addition, scholars who directly inherited their research methods and attitudes and raised their spirit were Lee Geon-chang(李建昌), Park Eun-sik(朴殷植), Shin Chae-ho(申采浩), and Jang Ji-yeon(張志淵).[27] In addition, it can be said that Choi Nam-seon(崔南善), Lee Neung-hwa(李能和), and Jeong In-bo(鄭寅普) belong to this group. In this way, historical thought in the late Joseon Dynasty was not only valuable at that time but also occupies a large proportion of the idea of Korean historical science. [28]

In the 19th century, the history of Korea had two basic characteristics. One was to break down the feudal social system that had already been dismantled in the internal development of Korean history and form a new modern society. The other was the question of how to maintain national independence in response to the imperialist and colonial advancement of Western capitalist powers or the Japanese colonial era.[31]

Therefore, historical studies of this period needed a historical consciousness to insight into such historical reality and cope with it. Moreover, in the period from the 1890s to the 1910s, Korean history was studied and described by Japanese scholars as modern history in that it was carried out by the Japanese invasion of the continent. In Japan, when research on Korean history was being conducted with such aggression, history in Korea had to seek a new dimension in terms of historical consciousness and methodology of historical research. In other words, modern Korean history also needed to break away from traditional historical views and grasp the development of history objectively.[32]

This request showed a tendency to take into account new methodologies only through the Gwangmu(光武) reform period, and the history of this period was based on Silhak(實學) and emphasized as a traditional idea · traditional culture that should inherit · develop Silhak. In this way, in the 5th year of Gwangmu (1901), Kim Taek-young(金澤榮), Hyunchae(玄采), and Jang Ji-yeon(張志淵) published or expanded practical books. In 1905, Kim Taek-young compiled <Yeoksa-Jipryak(歷史輯略)>, and Jang Ji-yeon was also preparing the history of Korean manners and customs.[33]

As such, historians of the reform period conducted their research on a practical basis, and the results were shown in two trends: Tongsa(通史) and special research. As Tongsa, Hwang Hyun(黃玹)'s <Maecheon Yarok(梅泉野錄)>, Jeong Gyeo(鄭喬)'s <Daehan Gyenyeonsa(大韓季年史)>, and Kim Taek-young's biography <Yeoksa-Jipryak> are representative. These authors' historical consciousness was strong so they agreed to the reform projects of this period and showed a national consciousness that strongly resisted imperialist aggression. However, their historical descriptions were still following traditionality, and their historical consciousness did not reach modernity. This point was a limitation and task that the historical studies of this period had to overcome.[34]

These tasks gradually found clues to solve through translation historical studies. From the standpoint of historical history, translation can be found in a series of translation activities. He performed <Manguksagi(萬國史記)> and published <Dongguksarak(東國史略)>. These translation activities were based on the common view of the literate stratum at the time that they should know how to invade imperialism, and interest in methodologies for historical descriptions is also developed.[35]

It was a series of scholars called ethnic historians who succeeded in the history of the reform period and solved the problems that could not be solved at that time.[36] Ethnic history was developed by Park Eun-sik(朴殷植) and Sin Chae-ho. Park Eun-sik developed Korean history into modern history by inheriting the history of the Gwangmu Reform period and introducing the methodology of modern history, which was in the 1910s, and "Hanguk Tongsa(韓國痛史)" and "Korean Independence Movement Jihyeolsa(韓國獨立運動之血史)"[37] are his representative books. In these books, he analyzed, criticized, and synthesized the development process of historical facts in terms of causal relations, and revealed the Japanese invasion process in detail through the methodology of modern history. He considered the soul, or spirit, as the key to maintaining the state, and called it the history of the country where the soul of the nation or state is contained. He also said that a country with a strong soul could eventually become independent even if it was temporarily merged into the powers. He believed that the Korean people were strong-spirited and were confident that Korea would also be liberated in the future. It cannot be overlooked that Park Eun-sik's historical thought and history were consistent with national consciousness and national spirit, and it was also incorporated into the enterprising reform idea that the world's culture should be opened to the world and consumed from an independent standpoint. At the same time, his historical ideas were dense in Confucian colors. Therefore, his reform ideas contained limitations that were bound to fault with the historical consciousness of modern Korean history in that regard.[38]

It was Shin Chae-ho who inherited Park Eun-sik's history and overcame the limitations of his historical consciousness and theoretically completed modern Korean history. His historical consciousness was thorough in the struggle against imperialism, and his ethnic consciousness was strong. His historical research was a struggle for independence in itself. It is a fact in the 1920s that Shin Chae-ho paid attention to history and completed modern Korean history, which is well illustrated in <Joseon Sanggosa(朝鮮上古史)>, and other fragmentary research activities. He recognized the nature of history as a "struggle between Ah(我) and Via(非我)." Here, <Ah> or <Via> should have an inheritance in time and its influence should be spread socially.[39] In addition, the struggle was a thing that if the spiritual sense of subjectivity for "Ah" was not established or if the environment of "Via" was not complied with, it would be defeated. In particular, the contradiction between "Ah" and "Via" within society is regarded as an opportunity for social development.[40] His essential understanding of history is that he tried to develop history and grasp the causal relationship of historical facts in social phenomena, and he understood that such struggles and new cultures were created by finding various egos of subjectivity and internally grasping various historical realities of each era in mutual contradictions. Shin Chae-ho's attitude toward recognizing history was the same as that in modern European history.[41]

Thus, from the standpoint of such historical awareness, Shin Chae-ho tried to reorganize Korean history. As part of such efforts, he criticized conventional historical books(史書) and recalled the importance of the three major elements of history composition, such as time(時), earth(地), and human(人), which were lacking in these historical books. He also criticized these books neglected to browse historical materials and failing to evaluate historical facts because they were based on the historical description methods of Confucius' <Chunchu(春秋)> or <Gangmok(綱目)> by Zhu Xi(朱子). Since the achievements of Korean history at that time were in this condition, he argued that Korean history should be reorganized by criticizing historical materials and improving the method and perception of historical research and historical narratives.[40]

The particularly important thing in Shin Chae-ho's historical consciousness is his strong pride in the history and tradition of the Korean people, and a kind of civic modern consciousness to believe in and achieve human freedom and social progress. He also emphasized the nation as the subject of history and closed up the people in the nation to the front of history, so this is also a vivid convenience of his modern consciousness. His perspective on Japan is concentrated on the fact that it is the overthrow of invaders by force and the independence of the people. He described it as a revolution by violence. He also harshly criticized the two methods that had been taken so far to build the Japanese Empire: the independence movement by diplomatic strategy and the theory of preparation. However, for him, independence did not mean simply the establishment of the Japanese Empire. At the same time, his independence included the social meaning of reforming the class contradictions and old social systems that had been involved in Korean society until then. Korea's modern history sprouted from the contradictory relationship of internal social contradictions and struggles against Japan, and through this, civic awareness and solid nationalism ideas were formed.[42]

Korean history was growing into modern history by Park Eun-sik(朴殷植) and Shin Chae-ho(申采浩). The historical descriptions and historical consciousness they showed during this period were valuable achievements of Korean history, and they played a role as a spiritual mainstay in establishing modern Korean history. However, in the 1930s and 1940s, modern Korean history changed and diversified. Around this time, professionally educated historians emerged, and historians who appear with a certain view of history in rapidly changing social ideas can be seen. In addition to ethnic history, which has now grown into a new history based on orthodox history, a socioeconomic history that tries to systematically systematize the entire history through a certain view of history has emerged.[43]

In the line of ethnic history, Choi Nam-sun, who had a different position from Shin Chae-ho, lost a consistent historical spirit and returned to the encyclopedic knowledge of the Silhak era. Choi Nam-sun's most prominent achievements in understanding Korean literary history are most clearly expressed in his thesis, <Bulham Munhwaron(不咸文化論)>. In addition, there were many historians in the field of ethnic history, but Jeong In-bo(鄭寅普) played a pivotal role among them. It was in the 1930s that he became immersed in full-fledged history research. It was Ahn Chai-hong(安在鴻), who wrote <Joseon SanggosaGam(朝鮮上古史鑑)", and Mun Il-pyeong(文一平) appeared in charge of another aspect of ethnic history at the same time as Jeong In-bo or Ahn Jae-hong, his <Hoamjeonjip(湖岩全集)> shows a new form of historical description in the regard of popularization of history and enlightenment of people.[44]

Son Jin-tae(孫晋泰) and Lee In-young(李仁榮), were active in the 1940s and succeeded in their academic lineage and tried to confront Japanese colonial history. However, despite their academic achievements, there were not many scholars belonging to national history.[45] Of course, as such personnel, their achievements in a short period were never small. They made great achievements in protecting the nation and enhancing the national spirit and established a historical view against Japanese colonial history to systematize Korean history on a solid basis. In addition, their historical consciousness was the best historical consciousness that historians during the Japanese invasion could have, and their historical descriptions also show the scientific nature of modern history. The level of historical narrative and historical awareness that these ethnic historians reached until the 1940s was high, and the direction of historical research they were aiming for is still an indicator today. They captured Korean history concerning world history and showed efforts to conduct research based on various stages of world history development or to introduce it into Korean history and apply it.[46]

Among them, it was a great achievement to apply the theory of social development to the system of Korean history. In short, they tried to establish the subjecthood of Korean history and were conscious of the harmony of universality and individuality related to world history. Often, the historical description of ethnic history is evaluated as unscientific or petty, but this is not an essential evaluation of ethnic history, but is limited to partial. However, it is necessary to face up to the fact that there are still certain limitations to the positive aspects of ethnic history. It is a fact that Japanese colonial history failed to scientifically overcome the political theory that tried to use their colonial policies and the historical evidence of positivism on the Korean War problem and the historical evidence of colonial history.[42]

When it comes to positivism during the Japanese colonial period, it is reminiscent of the Jin-dan Academy (震檀學會), and there is a good reason for this. The Jin-dan Academy was organized in 1934, and the nature of positivism can usually be revealed by analyzing the relationship between them and socioeconomic history and national history. socioeconomic historians view the Jin-dan Academy as a society that conducts academic activities like pure history if it is necessary to create and attach words. In short, they criticized positivism as a research organization without a view of history. In response, the Jin-dan Academy did not receive active participation from socioeconomic historians, but it also published such criticism as room to tolerate them. However, despite this aspect, the confrontation between the two was tense.[47]

Next is the relationship with ethnic history. Jeong In-bo was dissatisfied with Japanese scholars because he tried to find national historical truths that were not told in the current literature, while positivist historians were also unwilling to be satisfied with the history of national historians and did not appreciate their academic achievements. As revealed in the relationship between positivism and national history and socioeconomic history, it is noteworthy that positivism was not obsessed with the older generation, but rather avoided it. They tried to understand the general through specific historical studies. However, it is criticized that there was no view of history in that their generalization work through individual historical facts did not develop to the stage of customs clearance in Korean history or the entire history.[48]

positivism also saw that application of the assumed formula or law was not a scientific method of historical research. They saw that general laws were not discovered only by examining the history of all ethnic groups in the world, and that generality could be extracted from individuals or ethnic groups. However, it is a mistake to think that demonstration is the exclusive property of positivism and that it is only a basic condition for historical general. Therefore, it is evident that positivism cannot be history itself. However, empirical historians showed little willingness to think about the general meaning based on individual facts. As a result, The problem of positivism has not been solved, which caused confusion in Korean modern history.[49]

Socioeconomic history also developed during this period. Although it is called socioeconomic history, not all historians belonging to it have a consistent personality. From the late 1920s to the 1930s, socialism, and labor movements were developing go along with the intensifying colonial exploitation and the wave of economic depression, this also affected history. One of the characteristics of historical descriptions in socioeconomic history was that it took the form of a systematic study of the entire socioeconomic system, apart from historical research on individual historical facts. The representative person was Paek Nam-un(白南雲).[50]

Paek Nam-un's representative writings are <The History of Joseon Socio-Economy> (1933) and <The History of Joseon Feudal Socio-Economy·上> (1937). He originally planned to complete the vast history of the Korean socio-economy. He criticized and rejected national history as a special view along with that of Japanese historians in his criticism of modern history, which he criticized in the study of traditional Korean history.[51] He saw it as distinct from the external specificity and the monistic law of history and thought that the basis of history was the monistic law of history.[50] He believed that only from this point of view can an active solution that does not know despair about the daunting specificity under the Japanese colonial rule. The monistic law of historical development, which he criticized and accepted as an alternative to colonial and nationalist views, that is, the so-called special view he called, was the formula of materialism.[52] And although it is criticized for applying this formula to Korean history as it is, it was highly praised for attempting to systematize Korean history in light of the development of world history. However, the question is what is the law of development in world history. He argued that the world-historical development law was based on the development law of European history, which is also well illustrated in his problem of the "Asian form of production." This problem seems to have been revealed with an Asian empire different from the development laws of Western society in mind, and this point is also applied to Korean history, and it is assumed that Korea refers to the specificity of feudal society, that is, Asian specificity. This is a direct betrayal of his so-called unitary law of development. It is proved that his historical system is not inductive based on specific research, but a one-sided application of the law.[53]

Therefore, the law of world history should be considered from a different angle. It is necessary to recognize that not only one rule governs history, but that pluralistic laws are embraced and interpreted with both universality and specificity. In addition, we should not be forgotten that specificity is understood based on the specific historical facts of the people, and various aspects of history are widely developed when such understanding becomes the comprehensive foundation of the people's perception of history.[54]