论文部分内容阅读
在当下后现代主义语境中,以德里达为代表的后结构主义发现了语言对主体的控制或颠覆力量后,历史感不断被淡化,人们关注的焦点转向差异、异质、边缘、碎片、不确定等范畴。在此背景下詹姆逊所提出的“永远历史化”策略有其深刻的原因,其目的在于通过构建一种马克思主义的阐释策略来突显文本背后的历史和能动性。但詹姆逊的“永远历史化”观点遭到了伊格尔顿的批判。伊格尔顿对詹姆逊的批判具有重要的启发意义。文章细致地阐述伊格尔顿对詹姆逊“永远历史化”观点的批判,发掘其理论立场和逻辑出发点,理清其批判的真实目的所在,为我们更好地理解历史化和文学批评的任务指清方向。
In the current context of postmodernism, the post-structuralism represented by Derrida discovered the power of control or subversion of the subject, the sense of history is constantly being diluted, the focus of attention turned to differences, heterogeneity, marginalization, fragmentation, Uncertainties and other areas. In this context, Jameson’s strategy of “always historicization” has its profound reasons. Its purpose is to highlight the history and initiative behind the text by constructing a Marxist interpretation strategy. However, Jameson’s view of “always historicization” was criticized by Eagleton. Eagleton’s critique of Jameson is of great significance. The article elaborated on Eagleton’s critique of Jameson’s view of “historicization forever”, explored its theoretical position and logical starting point, clarified the true purpose of criticism, provided us with a better understanding of history and literature The task of criticizing refers to the direction.