萨特和巴特在二战后都受到马克思唯物主义历史观的影响,审视批判文学史中的资产阶级意识形态。萨特强调文学应从内容上介入,巴特则认为形式也有责任。两人对诸如“文学”“写作”等持不同定义,却并非代表“介入”与“非介入”两极。本文通过还原诸如“介入文学”“作者之死”“零度写作”等文学批评术语的历史语境和文本语境,尝试厘清两入不同的“介入”观,并回应毕晓发表于《国外文学》2014年第2期上的同名论文,以警惕国内批评界对萨特和巴特的误读与盲目比较。 After World War II, Sartre and Barthes were both influenced by the Marxist materialist view of history and examined the bourgeois ideology in the history of critical literature. Sartre emphasizes that literature should be involved in the content, but Bart believes that the form also has a responsibility. The two hold different definitions for such as “literary” and “writing”, but they do not represent the poles of “intervention” and “non-intervention.” This article attempts to clarify two different “interventions” perspectives by restoring the historical context and textual context of literary criticisms such as the “Death of the Writer” “Zero Writing ” and In response to Bi Xiao’s essay published in the second issue of Foreign Literature in 2014, he was wary of the misunderstanding and blind comparison between Sartre and Pat in the domestic critics.