Abstract:

Historicist criticism makes more sense as an aesthetic stance than as a discipline for producing knowledge. I examine Galen Strawson's essay "Against Narrativity" and Ian McEwan's novel Saturday to account for historicism's distinct aesthetic. Strawson distinguishes between Diachronic and Episodic orientations toward time, and both writers work to validate the Episodic perspective against the claim that Diachronicity is psychologically and ethically normative. Because historicist criticism privileges singular epiphanic encounters with the past that would transcend or preclude narrativization, historicists appear as unhappy Diachronics, seeking an Episodic fulfillment that their prior commitment to totalizing narratives of power renders elusive.

摘要：

历史主义批评作为一种审美立场比作为产生知识的学科更有意义。我研究了盖伦·斯特劳森 (Galen Strawson) 的论文“反对叙事性”(Against Narrativity) 和伊恩·麦克尤恩 (Ian McEwan) 的小说《星期六》(Saturday )，以说明历史主义的独特美学。斯特劳森区分了历时性和情景式的时间取向，两位作者都致力于验证情景式的观点，以反对历时性在心理和伦理上具有规范性的说法。因为历史主义批评优先考虑与过去的单一顿悟遭遇，这将超越或排除叙事化，历史主义者表现为不快乐的历时论者，寻求一种情景式的实现，而他们先前对权力总体化叙事的承诺使得这种实现变得难以捉摸。