论文部分内容阅读
保罗.德曼和弗雷德里克.詹姆逊给读者的印象往往是不可调和的论争对手,因为后者视政治无意识为不可超越的批评视界,而前者则把语言无意识当作文学批评的最终涉指。然而,它们之间的分歧并没有使他们成为两条永不相遇的平行线,而是将他们引入了对话和交流。德曼的寓言阅读模式和詹姆逊的政治阅读模式似乎有一种“天然的”亲和关系:两者都论证文本或解读的寓言特征,两者都苦心孤诣地揭示语言世界里争夺意识形态霸权的政治欲望。正如詹姆逊的政治无意识理论提供了一种寓言阅读模式,德曼的文学语言学对意识形态总是作出不懈的政治解读。他们之间的根本差异在于,德曼认为意识形态的出现乃是语言本身使然,而詹姆逊则认为意识形态的形成是回应历史的需要。
Paul Deman and Frederic Jameson often impress readers with irreconcilable arguments because the latter treats political unconscious as an insurmountable critical field of vision, while the former treats language unconscious as the ultimate of literary criticism Involved. However, the differences between them did not make them two parallel lines that never meet, but instead brought them into dialogue and exchange. There seems to be a “natural” affinity between De Man’s fable reading model and Jameson’s political reading pattern: both arguing the text or the allegory trait of interpretation, both painstakingly revealing the battle for ideology in the linguistic world Hegemonic political desire. Just as Jameson’s theory of political unconscious provides an allegory reading mode, De Man’s literary linguistics always makes an indepth political interpretation of ideology. The fundamental difference between them is that Germanman believes that the appearance of ideology is the language itself, and Jameson believes that the formation of ideology is in response to the needs of history.