 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
“Some Things Must Be Left Unsaid!”—On How Macherey Is Dialogically Engaged with Post-Marxism
Billy Bin Feng Huang
Full-Text PDF
XML 1389 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2018.03.019
National Chengchi University of Taiwan; Shilin High School of Commerce, Taipei, Taiwan
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.
Macherey, (un)said, narrative rupture, post-Marxism, Althusser, Eagleton, Jameson
Althusser, L. (1996.). For marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: Verso.
Althusser, L. (2006). Philosophy of the encounter: Later writings, 1978-1987 (G. M. Goshgarian, Trans.). O. Corpet and F. Matheron, (Eds.). London: Verson.
Bakhtin, M. (1976). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (R. W. Rostel, Trans.). Michigan: Ardis/Ann Arbor.
Balibar, E. (1994). Althusser’s Object (M. Cohen and B. Robbins, Trans.). Social Text, 9, 157-188.
Balibar, E., & Macherey, P. (1995). Literature as an ideological form. In T. Eagleton and D. Milne (Eds.), Marxist literary theory: A reader (pp. 276-295). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: The Noonday Press.
Belsey, C. (1980). Critical practice. New York: Menthuen & Co. Ltd.
Bennett, A., & Royle, N. (1999). Introduction to literature, criticism and theory. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe.
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press.
Boeckmann, S. L. Von. (1998). Marxism, morality, and the politics of desire: Utopianism in Fredric Jameson’s The Political Unconscious. Utopian Studies, 9(2), 31-50.
Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form. Princeton: University of California Press.
Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A defense. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Comninel, G. (1987). Rethinking the French revolution. New York: Verso.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Derrida, J. (1994). Specters of marx: The state of the debt, the work of the mourning, and the new international (P. Kamuf, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
Dowling, W. C. (1984). Jameson, Althusser, Marx. London: Menthuen & Co. Ltd.
Eagleton, T. (1976). Criticism and ideology: A study in marxist literary theory. London: Verso.
Eagleton, T., & Wicker, B. (Eds). (1968). From culture to revolution. London: Sheed & Ward Ltd.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and K. Soper, Trans). C. Gordon (Ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf,.
Frank, L. (2003). Victorian detective fiction and the nature of evidence: The scientific investigations of Poe, Dickens, and Doyle. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Frye, N. (1957). The anatomy of criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method (G. Barden and J. Cumming, Trans.). New York: Seabury.
Jameson, F. (1971). Marxism and form: Twentieth-century dialectical theories of literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jameson, F. (1981). The political unconscious: Narrative as a socially symbolic act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. (2003). Raymond Williams’ sociology of culture: A critical reconstruction. London: Macmillion.
Kavanagh, J. H., & Lewis, T. E. (1982). Interview: Estienne Balibar and Pierre Macherey. Diacritics, 12(1), 46-51.
Kurzweil, E. (1980). The age of structuralism: Levi-Strauss to Foucault. New York: Columbia University Press.
Macherey, P. (1978). A theory of literary production (G. Wall, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Macherey, P. (1990). The object of literature (D. Macey, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macherey, P., & Lanser, S. S. (1976). The problem of reflection. Substance, 5(15), 6-20.
Mao, T.-T. (1971). Selected readings from the works of Mao, Tse-Tung (A). Peking: Foreign Language Press.
Marx, K. (1963). The eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1977). The german ideology. New York: International Publishers.
Moriarty, M. (2006). Ideology and literature. Journals of Political Ideologies, 11 (1), 43-60.
Myles, J. C. (2005). On Her Majesty’s ideological state apparatus: Indirect rule and empire. New Political Science, 27(2), 147-160.
Neale, S. (1977). Propaganda. Screen, 18(3), 9-40.
Ragland-Sullivan, E. (1986). Jacques Lacan and the philosophy of psychoanalysis. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Said, E. (1994). An ethics of language: Review of Michel Foucault’s The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Michel Foucault: Critical assessment Volume II (pp. 69-88). B.Samrt (Ed.). London: Routledge.
Sartre, J.-P. (1973). The reprieve (E. Sutton, Trans.). New York: Vintage.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Sinfield, A. (2010). Reading critical practice and Macherey. Textual Practice, 24(6), 1059-1072.
White, H. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, R. (1989). What I came to say. F. Mullhern (Ed.). London: Hutchinson Radius.
Wolff, R. D. (2005). Ideological state apparatuses, consumerism, and U. S. capitalism: Lessons for the left. Rethinking Marxism, 17(2), 223-235.
Zizek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.