伊格爾頓概括了馬克思主義文學批評的四種形態,并將"人類學批評"置于首位,稱其為"雄心最大、影響最遠"的一種。這一論斷,為探討馬克思主義批評的形態類型的相關研究提供了重要參照。雖然人類學思想在馬克思主義中的地位尚有爭議,但當前有越來越多的學者關注二者的關系,把人類學思想看作馬克思主義的重要來源。本文認為,承認二者的關聯并不意味著主張馬克思晚年有一個獨立于唯物史觀之外的"人類學階段",也不應把馬克思的人類學思考籠統地稱為"人類學轉向",而應當將其視為馬克思主義社會研究的一部分,視為唯物史觀在人類學領域的延伸和拓展;同時,我們也沒有理由拒絕把馬克思主義的相關研究置于人類學的視角之下進行審視。本文力圖探究馬克思主義理論中人類學思想的發生和嬗變過程,剖析其理論動機和功能特征,并以人類學學科的自身發展軌跡為參照,從方法、問題域和理論目的等角度呈現馬克思主義人類學批評的理論概貌。

Eagleton summed up the four forms of Marx’s literary criticism,and put "Anthropological Criticism" in the first place.This view provides a basis for the study of the morphological types of Marx’s criticism.Although the position of the anthropological concept in Marx’s theory is controversial,more and more scholars pay attention to the relationship between them,which is regarded as an important source of Marx’s theory.The author believes that the recognized relationship between them does not mean that in the late years of Marx’s life there is a stage of anthropology independent of the historical materialism.At the same time,Marxist anthropology thinking should not be known as "the Anthropological Turn".Instead,we should regard it as a part of Marxist social research.What’s more,there is no reason to reject the study of Marx doctrine from the perspective of anthropology.This paper tries to explore the process of the occurrence and evolution of anthropological thought in Marxist theory,analyses the motivation and functional characteristics of the theory,and presents the theoretical connotation of Marxist anthropology criticism from the perspectives of method,the problem domain,and theoretical purpose in the light of anthropological development.