詹姆逊所提出的“永远历史化”作为一个超历史的命令,本身又是一个历史行为,构成了一种述行的矛盾。詹姆逊及大多数文化左派所犯下的另一个错误在于,认为历史化具有激进的本质,在文学批评上主张让文本回归历史语境。事实上在这个问题上,左派与右派拥有同样的立场,两者的分歧不在于是否历史地解读文本,而是如何解读历史本身。对于马克思主义者来说,历史同时是关于文明和野蛮、解放和压迫的叙事,文学批评的任务就是对记录文明的史册进行X光检查,以便揭露其中野蛮的痕迹。正如本雅明所说的,历史在某种意义上是可以改变的,因为现在和将来都在一种全新的光线下对它加以改写。这同样适用于文学,批评在某种意义上成为作品的一部分,对作品不断地加以补充,并且这个过程是不会终止的,因为作品本质上是不完整的。 Jameson’s proposed “forever historicization” as an ultra-historical order is itself a historical act that constitutes a paradoxical contradiction. Another mistake made by Jameson and most of the cultural leftists is that they consider radicalization of history and advocate the return of text to historical context in literary criticism. In fact, on this issue, the left and the right have the same position. The difference between the two lies not in whether the text is interpreted historically but how the interpretation of history itself is. For Marxists, history is both a narrative of civilization and savagery, liberation and oppression. The task of literary criticism is to conduct an X-ray examination of the annals of recorded civilization in order to expose the brutal traces of it. As Benjamin said, history can be changed in a sense because it is now rewritten in a whole new light, now and in the future. The same applies to literature, in which criticism becomes part of the work in a way that continually complements the work, and that the process will not end as the work is inherently incomplete.