바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.23 No.2

Citation Share

Searching for an Educational Solution to Territorial Conflicts in East Asia: From Territory Education to an Alternative Education on East Asian Geography

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2013, v.23 no.2, pp.165-200

(2013). Searching for an Educational Solution to Territorial Conflicts in East Asia: From Territory Education to an Alternative Education on East Asian Geography. Space and Environment, 23(2), 165-200.

Abstract

This paper, with a critical engagement with recently emerging discourses on territory education emphasizing the need to educate the issues of territorial identities and sovereignty to students, urges that a total re-formulation of geography education ― instead of expanding territory education ― is needed in order to make a meaningful contribution to the efforts to resolve the current territorial conflicts, and develop more peaceful relations, among neighboring countries in East Asia. In particular, it points out that the existing territory education perspective ― due to its nationalist orientation and its theoretical reliance on the organic conception of territory and the essentialist notion of place ― is more likely to aggravate the territorial conflicts in East Asia. With growing concerns on the nationalist territory education, there have been recent efforts to develop alternative perspectives on territory education by emphasizing the notion of civic nationalism, education for critical literacy, and development of transnational citizenship. This paper, however, highlights that these efforts are still limited in overcoming the logics of territorial exclusiveness and thus not fully useful in developing a peaceful East Asia, as long as they are made under the name of territory education, and suggests to get rid of the frame of territory education. With this problem orientation, I argue that we need to make an effort to completely re-formulate the curriculum of geography education ― instead of wasting our time and energy for territorial education ― if we want to develop an educational curriculum that can make a genuine contribution to the East Asian peace. More specifically, I suggest that 1) the developers of geography education curriculum needs to make more aggressive efforts to incorporate the relational conception of place into the contents of geography education, and 2) research and education on ‘East Asian Geography’ need to be much more strengthened in order to overcome the ‘territorial trap’ and ‘methodological nationalism’ inherent in the existing curriculum of geography education, which has been organized on the basis of two pillars of ‘Korean Geography’ and ‘World Geography’.

keywords
territory education, East Asian geography, place, territoriality, nationalism territorial conflict., 영토교육, 동아시아 지리, 장소, 영역성, 민족주의, 영토분쟁

Reference

1.

남호엽. 2011. ｢글로벌 시대 지정학 비전과 영토교육의 재개념화｣. ≪한국지리환경교육학회지≫, 19(3), 371~379쪽.

2.

박배균. 2008. ｢한국에서 토건국가 출현의 배경: 정치적 영역화가 토건지향성에 미친영향에 대한 시론적 연구｣. ≪공간과 사회≫, 31, 49~87쪽.

3.

박배균. 2010. ｢장소마케팅과 장소의 영역화: 본질주의적 장소관에 대한 비판을 중심으로｣. ≪한국경제지리학회지≫, 13(3), 498~513쪽.

4.

박선미. 2007. ｢인천의 장소만들기 정책에 대한 비판적 고찰｣. ≪한국도시지리학회지≫, 10(3), 13~25쪽.

5.

박선미. 2010. ｢탈영토화 시대의 영토교육 방향－우리나라 교사와 학생대상 설문결과를 중심으로｣. ≪한국지리환경교육학회지≫, 18(1), 23~36쪽.

6.

서태열. 2009. ｢영토교육의 개념화와 영토교육모형에 대한 접근｣. ≪한국지리환경교육학회지≫, 17(3), 197~210쪽.

7.

유용태·박진우·박태균. 2011. 함께 읽는 동아시아 근현대사 1, 2 . 창작과 비평.

8.

이하나·조철기. 2011. ｢한일 지리교과서에 나타난 영토교육 내용 분석｣. ≪한국지역지리학회지≫, 17(3), 332~347쪽.

9.

임덕순. 2006. ｢지리교육에 있어서의 영토교육의 중요성｣. 한국지리환경교육학회 2006년 추계학술대회 요약집, 1~10쪽.

10.

임지현. 2005. ｢국민국가의 안과 밖－동아시아 영유권 분쟁과 역사논쟁에 부쳐｣. ≪인문연구≫, 48, 1~18쪽.

11.

진시원. 2008. ｢동북아 영토분쟁. 중등교육에서 어떻게 가르칠 것인가? 간도분쟁 사례를 중심으로｣. ≪한국정치학회보≫, 42(2), 435~455쪽.

12.

Agnew, J. 1997. “The dramaturgy of horizons: geographical scale in the “Reconstruction of Italy” by the new Italian political parties. 1992～95.” Political Geography, 16(2), pp. 99~122.

13.

Ardrey, R. 1967. The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations. London: Collins.

14.

Brenner, N. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: a short introduction. Malden. MA: Blackwell.

16.

Delaney, D. 2013. 영역 . 박배균·황성원 역. 시그마프레스.

17.

Dijkink, G. 1996. National Identity and Geopolitical Vision. London: Rougledge.

18.

Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.

19.

Harvey, D. 1985. “The geopolitics of capitalism.” in Gregory. D. and Urry. J. (eds.). Social relations and spatial structures. London: Macmillan.

20.

Harvey, D. 1989. The Urban Experience. Oxford: Blackwell.

21.

Jessop, B., Brenner, N. & Jones, M. 2008. “Theorizing Socio-Spatial Relations.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), pp. 389~401.

22.

Massey, D. 1997. “A Global Sense of Place.” In Barnes. T. and Gregory. D. (eds.) Reading Human Geography, pp. 315~323, London: Arnold.

23.

Relph, E. 2005. 장소와 장소상실 . 김덕현·김현주·심승희 역. 논형.

24.

Rose, G. 1993. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press.

25.

Sack, R. D. 1986. Human Territoriality: its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Storey, D. 2001. Territory: the Claiming of Space. London: Prentice Hall.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy