总体历史观:赋魅的困境——詹姆逊叙事政治学主符码评析之六  

Historical Totality: The Plight of Re-enchantment: A Critical Review of Jameson's Major Code of Narrative Politics

作　　者：张开焱[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖北师范学院文学院

出　　处：《文艺理论研究》2015年第5期106-114,共9页Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art

基　　金：作者主持的国家社科基金项目"叙事形式政治潜素与政治意义及其生成模式研究"[项目编号:10BZW004]成果之一

摘　　要："总体性历史"是詹姆逊包括叙事政治阐释在内的文化政治阐释学的主符码之一,这个主符码带给他许多犀利的洞见,但也存在赋魅(神秘化)倾向。詹姆逊认为个体感性经验对于总体历史而言都是不真实的,后者无法被任何个体所感知把握,这就使他的理论存在明显的神秘化倾向和内在的悖论。同时,在后现代语境中,詹姆逊的总体历史观也遇到严峻的质疑和挑战。解决詹姆逊面临的困境,不是彻底否定历史总体性的存在,而是吸纳中西哲人有关智慧,确认历史总体性的存在,但同时更重视个体(此在)当下历史经验和认知的价值。确认所有个体对历史的认知("此在之历史")都指向和属于这个总体性历史,但都不是这个总体性历史的全部而是部分构成,都既有存在理由又有必然局限。As one of the major codes in Jameson＇s cultural and political hermeneutics, ＂the totality history,＂ while yielding much insight, has a tendency of re-enchantment （mystification）. Jameson thinks that the individual perceptual experience is not true for the totality history, while the totality history can not be recognized and grasped by any individual, so his theory has obvious mystification tendency and intrinsic paradox. Meantime, Jameson＇s totality history view also encounters severe query and challenge in the post- modern context. Solving the plight Jameson faced is not to deny the existence of the historical totality, but to absorb Chinese and western philosophers＇ wisdom to confirm the existence of historical totality, and attach more importance to the value of individual＇s present historical experience and recognition. We should make sure that all the individual＇s recognition of history points to and belongs to this overall history, but just part of it, they all have reason to exist and also have their limits.

关 键 词：詹姆逊 总体历史观 赋魅 后现代 困境 宏大历史 小型历史 

分 类 号：D08[政治法律—政治学]