Pierre Macherey, A Theory of Literary Production (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978)

We can only describe, only remain within the work, if we also decide to go beyond it; to bring out, for example, what the work is compelled to say [… W]e must show a sort of splitting within the work; this division in its unconscious, is so far as it possesses one - the unconscious which is history beyond its edges, encroaching on those edges: this is why it is possible to trace the path which leads from the haunted work to that which haunts it. (p.94)

We should question the work as to what it does not and cannot say, in those silences for which it has been made. The concealed order of the work is thus less significant than its real determinant disorder (its disarray). The order which it professes is merely an imagined order, projected onto disorder, the fictive resolution of ideological conflicts, a resolution so precarious that it is obvious in the very letter of the text where incoherence and incompleteness burst forth […]

This distance which separates the work from the ideology which it transforms is rediscovered in the very letter of the work: it is fissured, unmade even in its making. (p.115)

Quoted by Daphne Abernethy, in ‘Edmund Burke and the Paradoxes of History’, MA diss. UUC 1998, pp.84-85.

[ back ]
[ top ]