(Re)producing the 'history problem': memory, identity and the Japan-South Korea trade dispute
(Re)producing the 'history problem': memory, identity and the Japan-South Korea trade dispute
复制标题
（再现）“历史问题”：记忆、身份与日韩贸易争端
DOI：
10.1080/09512748.2021.1897652
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Deacon C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Deacon C
日韩关系一直被国际关系学者视为困惑主流理性主义理论的难题，这些理论难以解释与所谓的“历史问题”相关的持续激烈争论。虽然许多学者，因此，采用传统的建构主义的方法，将历史纳入他们的分析，这样的文学往往忽略了（重建）的过程中，这一社会现实，从而隐含地对待这些负面情绪的韩国和日本的文化/身份的要素，导致某些外交政策。本文以最近的日韩贸易争端为个案，运用批判建构主义/后结构主义理论和话语分析方法，考察“历史问题”是如何产生和再现的。它认为，在韩国，这代表日本作为一个顽固的殖民侵略者，并在日本，这代表韩国的情感和非理性的沉湎于过去的遗忘，占主导地位的话语的记忆，（重新）生产的身份，在他们的态度冲突困难的历史。虽然这种外交政策实践（重新）产生了占主导地位的国家身份，但这些身份也塑造了外交政策合法或可以想象的界限。这种认同与外交政策的相互构成关系不断再现日韩关系中的“历史问题”。
Japan-South Korea relations have consistently been presented by International Relations scholars as a puzzle that confounds mainstream rationalist theories, which struggle to explain the consistent acrimony associated with the so-called ‘history problem’. While many scholars have, therefore, adopted conventional constructivist approaches to incorporate history into their analyses, such literature often neglects the processes of(re)constructionof this social reality, thereby implicitly treating these negative sentiments as essentialised elements of Korean and Japanese culture/identity which cause certain foreign policies. Using the recent Japan-South Korea trade dispute as a case study, this article instead draws on critical constructivist/poststructuralist theory and discourse analytical methods to examine how the ‘history problem’ is produced and reproduced. It argues that dominant discourses of remembering in South Korea, which represent Japan as an unrepentant colonial aggressor, and of forgetting in Japan, which represent South Korea as emotional and irrational for dwelling on the past, act to (re)produce identities that clash in their attitudes to difficult history. While such foreign policy practices (re)produce dominant national identities, these identities also shape the bounds of which foreign policies are legitimate or imaginable. Thismutually constitutiverelationship between identity and foreign policy continually reproduces the ‘history problem’ in Japan-South Korea relations.