This essay attempts to situate this special issue as an intervention, from a materialist perspective, in the field of Israeli cultural studies. We interrogate the common periodizations of Israeli culture, and its contemporary characterization as “post-post-Zionist.” We try to show that the latter betrays an unacknowledged failure of historical narration, present throughout Israeli cultural production. We then argue that rather than being satisfied with this failure, the goal of Israeli cultural critique today should be to search for new ways to narrate “big” history, to reassert the indispensability of relating personal experience of the present, in all its details, to the making of history. We then explain how each of the contributions to this special issue takes this task upon itself—some more and some less explicitly. Oded Nir and Ari Ofengenden, "Introduction: Israeli Critical Reflection After Post-Zionism, page 2 of 10 or The Opening as Interpretive Horizon" CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 21.2 (2019): Thematic Issue Materiality and the Time of the Present in Israeli Culture. Ed. Oded Nir and Ari Ofengenden Oded NIR and Ari OFENGENDEN Introduction: Israeli Critical Reflection After Post-Zionism, or The Opening as Interpretive Horizon We cannot not periodize --Fredric Jameson, A Singular Modernity For academic critics whose subject matter has anything to do with Israel, the last decade has marked a period of retrenchment or of the quick falling apart of a new academic consensus of the 90s, in which a new sense of freedom from the nation seemed to accompany harmoniously the rise to prominence of a host of new methodologies. Derrida, Butler, Kristeva, Foucault, Bhabha—the names of the new heroes of critique became commonplace in Israeli academic writing, displacing older, more discipline-specific, sets of concerns and problems, in which theoretical thinking had an entirely different place and role. The term Post-Zionism was often used to refer to this uneasy convergence of new academic critical methodologies with a political project that extended outside the academy: the pursuit of peace, which gave the whole affair its local color, seemingly distinguishing it from similar trends elsewhere. Indeed, if one considers the Israeli New Historiography—which has never been one for theory—as midwife to Post-Zionism, one can clearly see that the new local political commitment paved the way to the flourishing of these borrowed new theoretical discourses in the Israeli academy, rather than the other way around. It is this Post-Zionism that suddenly faltered in recent years, as common wisdom has it. Beneath the surface, however, one could nonetheless sense the tensions between theory and peace, to use a convenient shorthand. The rejection of the new theoretical perspectives by some of the New Historians is perhaps the most well-known example. But others abound: Adi Ophir’s writing on postmodernism, and his conviction that “in Israel, a true postmodern culture can never develop, because here there are serious issues, and real evil, and real problems” is nothing if not an attempt to protect the Post-Zionist political project from theoretical perspectives that would have none of it(Zemach 28). For it is not difficult at all to see how Derridean deconstruction or Butler-style performativity can undermine the utopian project of peace, or that of Palestinian nation-building. Nor does Foucault’s writing, abstracted from its context of production, allow us to distinguish between Israeli and Palestinian power. Yet the label of Post-Zionism seemed to hold—as long as one did not look too closely, and as long as historical movement allowed for some contradictoriness to exist as its motor. But the sudden end of it all around the early 2000s has transformed a living, developing contradiction into a site for forensic investigation. The feeling that something has ended seems to stubbornly resist conceptualization—it is never really clear what, exactly, has gone away, and what persists unperturbed. For it is not exactly that “theory” has been banished from Israeli academic writing, even if its marginalization is clear; some still use their writing to aid the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, even if more current endeavors in this direction seem repetitive, unnecessarily self-righteous, or simply lackluster or turgid; the anti-national impulse has also not entirely disappeared: current Israeli social and historical writing still has its sights on the nation and its institutions, however ambivalently or “complexly” it now characterizes them. Thus, one finds oneself today faced with an unrelenting need to narrate what, after all, happened to Post-Zionism. The past accounts of Post-Zionists themselves and their allies are of course no longer useful for this purpose—their narratives being those of Post-Zionism’s righteous ascent, now simply constituting part of the subject-matter to be analyzed rather than a narrative we can adopt as our own, faced as we are with its quick decline (For an example of one such celebratory account, see Silberstein). It should be clear at the outset that any such attempt to conceptualize the death of Post-Zionism— or better yet, of narrating the unfolding of its demise—is always done from the perspective of a new social project, a new political and historical interpretive horizon. This new horizon usually remains implicit or even unconscious in critical writing of the current moment, yet its existence must always be insisted upon—the flight from politics or so-called grand narratives always inevitably and simultaneously being the assertion of some new such narrative. If materialism as a critical perspective—one which is common to the contributions in this collection—can be give a minimal definition, it resides precisely in the insistence that the world of narratives and ideas can never be wholly severed from the realm of materiality. One cannot excise a political horizon from interpretation any more than one can prevent an idea or narrative from constituting an imaginary solution to the contradictions of its material conditions of existence, to adopt Louis Althusser’s definition of ideology (Althusser 109). Perhaps surprisingly, Oded Nir and Ari Ofengenden, "Introduction: Israeli Critical Reflection After Post-Zionism, page 3 of 10 or The Opening as Interpretive Horizon" CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 21.2 (2019): Thematic Issue Materiality and the Time of the Present in Israeli Culture. Ed. Oded Nir and Ari Ofengenden therefore, materialist critique emerges as the commitment to engage with the new horizons contained in any reframing of Post-Zionism or its subject matter. Thus, one should not be satisfied with any attempt to argue that the historiography that comes after Post-Zionism is simply a complex factual truth, one that does not easily fit any clear political divides. Assaf Likhovski has suggested the term “Post-Post-Zionism” for precisely such escape from PostZionism, which he traces in much contemporary writing, including texts by some of the contributors to this collection (Likhovski). It is precisely Likhovski’s imagined step out of ideology that is here a step into it, as Slavoj Žižek would put it (Žižek, “Introduction” 4). For it is not at all difficult to see that what is articulated by Likhovski as ethical ambivalence or complexity (or as what remains as purely contingent, to echo Žižek’s terms), is on another interpretive level simply a failure to narrate history—picking up this time the reading methodology developed by Fredric Jameson (Jameson, Postmodernism 20–22; Jameson, The Political). The force of Jameson’s interpretive system is precisely in positing the existence of several antagonistic interpretive “codes” or levels, the existence of which makes it possible for us to go beyond Likhovski’s ethico-psychological reading. In Jameson’s system, this latter ethical interpretation is subsequently transcoded (Jameson’s term) into, first, the historical context in which it appears, and then reread once more in terms of the figuration of the capitalist system itself. It is precisely the contradictions articulated on each level that propels the reading into the next code or level: ethical or psychological oppositions lead one’s reading to considering the historical context in which they appear and how it appears in the text; the forces that animate that context require that we read them as expressions of the deeper history of social form itself—the history of capitalism in our case. Returning to Likhovski’s conception of Post-Post-Zionism, it is not too difficult to see the ambivalence that he celebrates as simply an unresolved contradiction, most often between oppositional ethical or political judgments (for example, that in Post-Post Zionist writing, certain institutions are seen in mixed light—as participating in a colonial enterprise but at the same time providing some basic human service for poor settlers). If in the Jamesonian schema, such non-resolution propelled the reading to the next code or level, as we suggested, the same does not happen in Likhovski. Here, the unresolved contradiction dialectically becomes its own resolution—the aporia celebrated as the telling sign of Truth, and closure enacted through the very attempt to deny it. Again, the imagined escape to the factual that Likhovski imagines demonstrating a point made brilliantly by Georg Lukács a long time ago: that the positing of seemingly bare facts or descriptions is always-already the assertion of some political narrative effort (Lukács 151–52). Two interpretive roads lead out of Likhovski’s intervention. The first has to do with interrogating the historical situation that makes such a position imaginable, if not necessary. This path leads from the historiographical failure of narration to the

中文翻译：

---

简介：后犹太复国主义之后的以色列批判性反思，或作为解释性视野的开放

本文试图从唯物主义的角度出发，将这一特殊问题作为对以色列文化研究领域的干预。我们质疑以色列文化的共同时期，并将其当代特征描述为“后犹太复国主义者”。我们试图证明，后者背叛了历史叙事的失败，这种叙事在以色列整个文化生产中都存在。然后，我们认为，今天的以色列文化批评的目标应该是寻求叙事“大”历史的新方法，而不是对这种失败感到满意，在所有细节上重申与现在的个人经历相关的不可或缺的条件，创造历史。然后，我们将解释对这个特殊问题的每项贡献如何将这项任务本身承担起来—越来越明确地体现出来。主题问题的实质性和以色列文化的时代。埃德 Oded Nir和Ari Ofengenden Oded NIR和Ari OFENGENDEN简介：后犹太复国主义之后的以色列批判性反思，或者作为解释性视野的开放，我们不能分期-弗雷德里克·詹姆森（Fredric Jameson），一种奇异的现代性在过去的十年中，标志着一个紧缩时期或90年代新学术共识迅速瓦解的时期，在此期间，新的民族自由感似乎与许多新方法的兴起和谐地相伴。德里达，巴特勒，克里斯蒂娃，福柯，巴巴-新的批评英雄的名字在以色列学术著作中变得司空见惯，取代了较老的，更具纪律性的关注点和问题，在其中理论思维具有完全不同的位置和作用。后犹太复国主义一词通常用来指代新的学术批判方法与在学院外扩展的政治项目的这种不安融合：追求和平，这使整个事件具有当地色彩，似乎使其与其他地方的类似趋势区分开来。的确，如果有人认为以色列新史学（从未成为理论史）是后犹太复国主义的助产士，则可以清楚地看到，新的地方政治承诺为在以色列发展这些借来的新理论话语铺平了道路。学院，而不是相反。正如常识所言，正是这种后犹太复国主义在近几年突然动摇。然而，在表面之下 尽管如此，使用便捷的速记还是可以感觉到理论与和平之间的紧张关系。一些新历史学家拒绝新的理论观点也许是最著名的例子。但其他人比比皆是：阿迪·奥菲尔（Adi Ophir）关于后现代主义的著作，以及他的信念：“在以色列，永远无法发展出真正的后现代文化，因为这里存在着严重的问题，真正的邪恶和现实的问题”，即使不是试图保护人类社会的尝试，也算不上什么。从理论上讲，后犹太复国主义的政治计划根本就没有（Zemach 28）。因为不难发现，德里达的解构主义或巴特勒式的表现如何会破坏乌托邦的和平计划或巴勒斯坦建国计划。福柯的作品也没有从其生产环境中抽象出来，让我们区分以色列和巴勒斯坦力量。然而，只要人们看起来不太紧密，并且只要历史运动允许某种矛盾的存在作为其动力，后犹太复国主义的标签似乎就会成立。但是，在2000年代初，一切突然结束，这改变了生活，使矛盾发展成为法医调查的场所。某种事物已经结束的感觉似乎顽固地抵制了概念化—永远不会真正弄清楚什么已经消失，什么仍然没有受到干扰。即使“边缘化”的边缘化很明显，它也不是完全被以色列学术著作所取代。有些人仍然用自己的著作来帮助实现巴以和解，即使目前在这一方向上的更多努力似乎是重复的，不必要的自以为是，或仅仅是呆滞或呆滞；反民族的冲动也没有完全消失：以色列目前的社会和历史著作仍然将目光投向国家及其机构，无论它现在是矛盾还是“复杂”的特征。因此，今天人们发现自己面对叙事后犹太复国主义到底发生了什么的坚定需求。后犹太复国主义者本人及其盟友的过去叙述当然不再为此目的有用—它们的叙述是后犹太复国主义的正义升迁的叙述，现在仅构成要分析的主题的一部分，而不是我们可以叙述的叙述接受它作为我们自己的事物，面对它正迅速衰落的情况（有关这种庆祝活动的例子，请参见Silberstein）。从一开始就应该清楚地知道，任何这样的企图将后犹太复国主义的死亡概念化的尝试，或者更好的是描述其灭亡的发展的尝试，都是从新的社会项目，新的政治和历史解释的角度来完成的。地平线。这种新视野通常在当下的批判性写作中仍然是含蓄的，甚至是无意识的，但必须始终坚持这一存在-逃离政治或所谓的宏大叙事总是不可避免的，同时又是某些新叙事的断言。如果可以将唯物主义作为一种批判性的观点（这是本系列的著作所共有的观点）进行最小限度的定义，则恰恰在于坚持认为，叙事和思想世界绝不能完全脱离实质性领域。采取路易斯·阿尔都塞的意识形态定义（阿尔都塞109），一个人不能从解释中剥夺政治视野，而不能阻止一种思想或叙述为它的物质存在条件的矛盾构成一种想象的解决方案。Oded Nir和Ari Ofengenden可能令人惊讶，“简介：后犹太复国主义之后的以色列批判反思，第10页的第3页或作为解释性视野的开放”，CLCWeb：比较文学与文化21.2（2019）：主题问题的实质性和以色列文化的时代。埃德 因此，奥德·尼尔（Oded Nir）和阿里·奥芬根登（Ari Ofengenden）提出了唯物主义批判，以致力于与对后犹太复国主义或其主题的重新构架所包含的新视野进行接触。因此，不应以任何试图论证后犹太复国主义之后的史学只是一个复杂的事实真相的尝试而感到不满意，这不容易适应任何明显的政治分歧。阿萨夫·利霍夫斯基（Assaf Likhovski）提出了“后后犹太复国主义”一词，以逃避后犹太复国主义的困扰，他在许多当代著作中都对此进行了追溯，包括该系列的一些撰稿人的文字（利霍夫斯基）。正如斯拉沃伊·齐泽克（SlavojŽižek）所说的那样，正是里霍夫斯基（Likhovski）所想象的从意识形态中走出来的一步（Žižek，“简介” 4）。因为我们不难发现，李霍夫斯基所说的是伦理上的矛盾或复杂性（或者仍然是纯粹的偶然性，以呼应齐泽克的说法），在另一个解释层面上仅仅是对历史的叙述失败了。时间由弗雷德里克·詹姆森（Fredric Jameson）提出（詹姆森，后现代主义20-22；詹姆森，政治）。詹姆森的解释系统的力量恰恰在于假定了几个对立的解释性“代码”或水平的存在，这些存在或存在使我们有可能超越利霍夫斯基的伦理心理学解读。在詹姆森的体系中，后一种道德解释随后被转码（詹姆森的术语）为首先出现的历史背景，然后再根据资本主义制度本身的形象重新阅读。正是在每个层次上表达的矛盾才促使阅读进入下一个规范或层次：伦理或心理上的对立使人们的阅读考虑其出现的历史背景以及其在文本中的出现方式。使这种环境动起来的力量要求我们将它们理解为更深层的社会形式本身的历史的表达，在我们的案例中是资本主义的历史。回到利霍夫斯基的“后犹太复国主义”概念，可以很容易地看到他所庆祝的矛盾性只是一个未解决的矛盾，通常是在对立的伦理或政治判断之间（例如，在后犹太复国主义者的著作中，从某些角度看，某些机构参与了一个殖民地企业，但同时又为贫穷的定居者提供一些基本的人力服务。如果在詹姆逊式模式中，如我们所建议的那样，这种非分辨率将读数推进到下一个代码或级别，则利霍夫斯基不会发生相同的情况。在这里，未解决的矛盾在辩证法上变成了它自己的解决方案-将阿波里亚庆祝为真相的标志，而通过试图否认这一事实而实行封闭。再次，李霍夫斯基想像的事实逃脱了乔治·卢卡奇很久以前出色地提出的观点：似乎虚无的事实或描述的假设总是已经是某些政治叙事努力的主张（卢卡奇151–52） 。Likhovski的干预导致两条解释性道路。第一个问题是询问历史情况，如果不需要的话，这种情况是可以想象的。这条路径从叙述的历史学失败走向