Academic Research Professor. The Korean Research Institute of Science, Technology and Civilization, Jeonbuk National University.
Uisahak. 2020 Aug;29(2):569-611. doi: 10.13081/kjmh.2020.29.569.
One of the main topics discussed by historians, including those of science, in the late twentieth century is the historical introspection into "modernism," a term based on a teleological view of the world. According to the conventional understanding of world history, the historical process to modernity that has led to the Civil Revolution, Scientific Revolution, and Capitalism is linear and universally inevitable, and this-in other words, Eurocentrism-implies that only the historical experiences of Europeans are relevant. This mainstream view of world history has spread the dichotomous analytic framework of historiography and reinforced cultural essentialism, which has eventually given a Euro- or Sino-centric hierarchical presentation of history. This type of world view rests on the assumption that there are intrinsic and incommensurable differences between cultures or localities, which a lot of commentators and scholars have constantly countered by arguing that that presumption does not comply with what historical sources say. Drawing on some trail-blazing scholarship of cultural studies and others, this essay turns away from this "conventional" framework of historiography and presents a world view that is framed in the context of trans-locality, interconnectedness, plurality, heterogeneity, polycentricity, and diversity. In recent years, in an attempt to search for new analytic frames, some endeavors have emerged in the field of cultural or science studies to go beyond just providing critical commentaries or case studies. Furthermore, researchers and scholars in the history of science, technology and medicine in East Asia have put an effort into conceptualizing and establishing such new analytic frames. Among those approaches are attempts to shed light upon the trans-local yet global interconnectedness (emphatically in pre-modern periods), diverse historical trajectories to modernities, and polycentric as well as plural landscape of scientific enterprises over time and across the world. On top of these new visions of world history, this essay further elaborates on and proposes some conceptive ideas: (1) "Tradition" as a set of recipes, which could replace the idea of the living yet dead tradition; (2) "Medicine" as a problem-solving activity, which calls more attention to historical actors of East Asian medicine; (3) "East Asian medicines" as a family of trans-locally related practices in East Asia, which would lead to going beyond the nationalist historiography such as Sino-centrism; (4) "Problematique" as the system of questions and concepts which make up East Asian medicine, which should reveal what East Asian medicines have been about; (5) "Styles of Practice" for the historiography of East Asian medicines, as opposed to the cultural account, epistemological historiography or praxiography; and, as an illustrative example, (6) "Topological Bodies" for the history of anatomy in East Asia. Going beyond tradition and dichotomous historiography, these new methodologies or conceptual ideas will contribute to the understanding of the history of East Asian medicines.
历史学家，包括科学史家，在 20 世纪后期讨论的主要话题之一是对“现代主义”的历史反思，这一术语基于世界的目的论观点。根据对世界历史的传统理解，导致了法国大革命、科学革命和资本主义的现代性历史进程是线性的，具有普遍必然性，换句话说，欧洲中心主义意味着只有欧洲人的历史经验才是相关的。这种主流的世界历史观传播了历史编纂学的二分法分析框架，并强化了文化本质主义，最终以欧洲或中国为中心的历史呈现方式。这种世界观基于这样一种假设，即文化或地方之间存在内在的、不可通约的差异，许多评论家和学者通过争辩说，这种假设不符合历史文献的说法，不断地对此进行反驳。本文借鉴了一些文化研究的开创性学术成果和其他成果，摒弃了这种“传统”的历史编纂学框架，提出了一种以跨地域性、互联性、多样性、异质性、多中心性和多样性为背景的世界观。近年来，为了寻找新的分析框架，文化或科学研究领域的一些努力已经超出了批判性评论或案例研究的范畴。此外，东亚科技与医学史的研究人员和学者也努力对这些新的分析框架进行概念化和建立。这些方法包括试图阐明（强调在近代以前）跨地域但又全球互联的关系、走向现代的不同历史轨迹，以及随着时间的推移和在世界各地的科学事业的多中心和多元化景观。在这些新的世界历史视野之上，本文进一步阐述并提出了一些概念性的想法：（1）“传统”作为一套方法，可以取代活着但已死的传统观念；（2）“医学”作为一种解决问题的活动，这需要更加关注东亚医学的历史参与者；（3）“东亚医学”作为一个跨地域相关实践的家族，这将超越以中国为中心的民族主义史学；（4）“问题”作为构成东亚医学的问题和概念体系，它应该揭示东亚医学的本质；（5）“实践风格”作为东亚医学史的史学方法，而不是文化叙述、认识论史学或实践史学；（6）作为一个说明性的例子，“拓扑身体”，用于东亚解剖学史。超越传统和二分法历史编纂学，这些新的方法或概念性的想法将有助于理解东亚医学的历史。
