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
The old-aged confrontation between “East” and “West”, between “civilization” and “barbarism”, between “Christianity” and “Islam” came to new heights in the early modern times and found its arena in Central...The old-aged confrontation between “East” and “West”, between “civilization” and “barbarism”, between “Christianity” and “Islam” came to new heights in the early modern times and found its arena in Central Europe. Since the late 15th century, the Ottoman Turks had been feared as menace, as the most dreadful enemies not only of the inhabitants of the Habsburg ruled countries but of the whole world of Christianity, and the Ottoman Turks did pose a permanent threat to their neighbours in Central Europe. The situation changed around 1700 when the Habsburgs succeeded in integrating the entire Hungarian Kingdom into their empire. From the early 18th century onwards the Ottoman Turks were no longer regarded as fierce fighters but increasingly as neighbours living in an unknown and totally different world and gained more and more curious attention. This change was not only the consequence of the new balance in power politics but mainly a sequel of gaining much more information. Up to the late 17th century the knowledge about the Ottoman Turks was based primarily on what had been reported by ambassadors travelling to Constantinople while in the 18th century people of several strands of life reported about their experiences. After the Peace of Passarowitz in 1718 trade agreements between the two states enabled activities of merchants and tradesmen who learned to know things about their eastern neighbours which were totally new to the Middle European contemporaries. Additionally, some elements of this ＂oriental＂ culture were taken over and were to become typical for Central Europe later on. The Turks were curiously observed as strange and fascinating neighbours. In the course of the movement of enlightenment from the middle of the 18th century onwards one aspect of this culture lost much of its dreadfulness： the fact that the Ottoman Turks were infidels. So it did not take very long until Ottomans were seen as being capable of true humanity regardless their religion. In the 19th century the multiethnic state organizations of the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy became outmoded in this age of nationalism. They realized their common interests and started a cooperation which eventually ended up as alliance in theWorld War I. From the point of view of power politics however, the Ottoman Empire was regarded as “sick man at the Bosporus”. In the following the changes of the image are shown as an overview by observing the criteria against the background of the most important historical events. The details of how this process worked are still pretty murky. Further investigations are already on the way and will bring more light into the reasons and the mechanism of this development.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.
文摘The old-aged confrontation between “East” and “West”, between “civilization” and “barbarism”, between “Christianity” and “Islam” came to new heights in the early modern times and found its arena in Central Europe. Since the late 15th century, the Ottoman Turks had been feared as menace, as the most dreadful enemies not only of the inhabitants of the Habsburg ruled countries but of the whole world of Christianity, and the Ottoman Turks did pose a permanent threat to their neighbours in Central Europe. The situation changed around 1700 when the Habsburgs succeeded in integrating the entire Hungarian Kingdom into their empire. From the early 18th century onwards the Ottoman Turks were no longer regarded as fierce fighters but increasingly as neighbours living in an unknown and totally different world and gained more and more curious attention. This change was not only the consequence of the new balance in power politics but mainly a sequel of gaining much more information. Up to the late 17th century the knowledge about the Ottoman Turks was based primarily on what had been reported by ambassadors travelling to Constantinople while in the 18th century people of several strands of life reported about their experiences. After the Peace of Passarowitz in 1718 trade agreements between the two states enabled activities of merchants and tradesmen who learned to know things about their eastern neighbours which were totally new to the Middle European contemporaries. Additionally, some elements of this ＂oriental＂ culture were taken over and were to become typical for Central Europe later on. The Turks were curiously observed as strange and fascinating neighbours. In the course of the movement of enlightenment from the middle of the 18th century onwards one aspect of this culture lost much of its dreadfulness： the fact that the Ottoman Turks were infidels. So it did not take very long until Ottomans were seen as being capable of true humanity regardless their religion. In the 19th century the multiethnic state organizations of the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy became outmoded in this age of nationalism. They realized their common interests and started a cooperation which eventually ended up as alliance in theWorld War I. From the point of view of power politics however, the Ottoman Empire was regarded as “sick man at the Bosporus”. In the following the changes of the image are shown as an overview by observing the criteria against the background of the most important historical events. The details of how this process worked are still pretty murky. Further investigations are already on the way and will bring more light into the reasons and the mechanism of this development.
