This paper aims to examine how Macherey is dialogically engaged with post-Marxism in formulating his reading strategy. First Macherey thinks that the author must have left something unsaid in his text. The unsaid or t...This paper aims to examine how Macherey is dialogically engaged with post-Marxism in formulating his reading strategy. First Macherey thinks that the author must have left something unsaid in his text. The unsaid or the narrative rupture is responsible for the multiplicity of the voices in the text, enabling the text to exist. Most of all, Macherey argues that a text, embedded in History, is where the author represents ideology inaccurately. And it is from this inaccuracy where the narrative rupture emerges. At this point, Macherey is dialogically correlated with several major post-Marxists, such as Althusser, Eagleton, and Jameson. First, all three of them give their own definitions to ideology, and they all define the relationship between the text, ideology, and History in a similar fashion. For Althusser, ideology is men＇s imaginary relation to History and is insufficiently reflected in the text, which perfectly corresponds to Macherey＇s claim. For Eagleton, a text absorbs ideology and puts it into contradiction, establishing its relationship with History. As Eagleton himself has stated, his so-called ＂ideological contradiction＂ is tantamount to Macherey＇s so-called ＂narrative rupture.＂ In Jameson＇s opinion, ideology is designed to repress social contradictions, and a text, a symbolic act, is supposed to offer imaginary solutions to them. Above all, they end up as the latent meanings of a text. As for History, it is the inaccessible Real. In speaking of ＂the latent meanings of a text,＂ Jameson literally echoes Machery＇s said/unsaid model. Thus, we can confirm how Macherey is dialogically engaged with post-Marxism.展开更多
文摘This paper aims to examine how Macherey is dialogically engaged with post-Marxism in formulating his reading strategy. First Macherey thinks that the author must have left something unsaid in his text. The unsaid or the narrative rupture is responsible for the multiplicity of the voices in the text, enabling the text to exist. Most of all, Macherey argues that a text, embedded in History, is where the author represents ideology inaccurately. And it is from this inaccuracy where the narrative rupture emerges. At this point, Macherey is dialogically correlated with several major post-Marxists, such as Althusser, Eagleton, and Jameson. First, all three of them give their own definitions to ideology, and they all define the relationship between the text, ideology, and History in a similar fashion. For Althusser, ideology is men＇s imaginary relation to History and is insufficiently reflected in the text, which perfectly corresponds to Macherey＇s claim. For Eagleton, a text absorbs ideology and puts it into contradiction, establishing its relationship with History. As Eagleton himself has stated, his so-called ＂ideological contradiction＂ is tantamount to Macherey＇s so-called ＂narrative rupture.＂ In Jameson＇s opinion, ideology is designed to repress social contradictions, and a text, a symbolic act, is supposed to offer imaginary solutions to them. Above all, they end up as the latent meanings of a text. As for History, it is the inaccessible Real. In speaking of ＂the latent meanings of a text,＂ Jameson literally echoes Machery＇s said/unsaid model. Thus, we can confirm how Macherey is dialogically engaged with post-Marxism.
