Day: September 21, 2024

The Debate:

• Realist justification: “Literature is in fact deeply conditioned by its social context” (Eagleton, 1988).
• Pragmatist justification: “Highlighting its social determinants is useful and desirable from a particular political standpoint” (Eagleton, 1988).

Problems with Each Approach:

• “Social product” is a broad term: “A problem with the realist case about the sociology of literature, then, is that it is not very clear what exactly is being claimed” (Eagleton, 1988).  
• Pragmatist critics might downplay the historical and social reality of issues: “The problem with this summary, however, is that it merely pushes the realist/pragmatist issue one stage back to the interpretation of history and society themselves” (Eagleton, 1988).

The Importance of Truth:

• Dismissing truth is problematic: “There is something odd in hearing certain feminist critics denounce truth in one breath and patriarchy in the next” (Eagleton, 1988).
• Truth is necessary for political criticism: “To abandon epistemology for politics is not undesirable but impossible” (Eagleton, 1988).

The Base/Superstructure Model:

• The model can be more useful if the superstructure is seen as a set of variable functions rather than a fixed category: “I am suggesting, in other words, that the base/superstructure model is most illuminating if the superstructure is regarded as a set of variable functions rather than as a given realm” (Eagleton, 1988).
• Superstructural features are those that actively participate in power struggles: “Superstructural is as superstructural does: some features of a social institution may be superstructural and some not, and these same features may change their status from one situation to another” (Eagleton, 1988).
• The state is both an instrument of ruling class and a site of political struggle: “The state is not only an agency of class rule but a means by which the unity of any social formation is produced and reproduced” (Eagleton, 1988).

Eagleton’s Position:

• He argues for a balance between realist and pragmatist accounts: “Insofar as ‘superstructural’ is a functional term, we cannot simply read off, in the manner of a strong epistemological realism, what is superstructural and what is not” (Eagleton, 1988).  
• Superstructural activity exists because of the divided base: “The superstructure is an ‘imaginary’ response to a real contradiction in the mode of production” (Eagleton, 1988).
• Eagleton acknowledges the limitations of a strong, genetic-functional view of the base/superstructure model: “The reason why many social institutions, ‘literature’ among them, behave for much of the time in superstructural fashion can be found in the nature of the base” (Eagleton, 1988).
• The approach is realist but allows for pragmatic focus: “In this sense, then, my case is a realist one; but it is not the strong, inflexible realism of a certain Marxist tradition, and it makes room for the pragmatic position of deciding, for reasons of one’s own particular political interests and desires, to focus on those aspects of social phenomena which are in any given situation supportive of hegemony” (Eagleton, 1988).

1. Oversimplification of the Theoretical Landscape:

• Reductionism: Critics argue that Eagleton’s division into realist and pragmatist approaches oversimplifies the complex theoretical landscape of the sociology of literature. There are numerous other perspectives, such as cultural materialism, new historicism, and post-structuralism, that offer more nuanced understandings of the relationship between literature and society.
• Neglect of Other Factors: Some argue that Eagleton’s focus on realist and pragmatist approaches neglects other important factors that shape literature, such as authorial intention, aesthetic considerations, and the reader’s interpretation.

2. Ambiguity in the Definition of “Superstructure”:

• Lack of Clarity: Critics have pointed out that Eagleton’s definition of “superstructure” is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. This ambiguity can lead to confusion and disagreement among scholars.
• Overemphasis on Hegemony: Some argue that Eagleton’s focus on the superstructure as a means of maintaining hegemony overlooks the potential for literature to challenge and subvert dominant ideologies.

3. Limited Engagement with Contemporary Theories:

• Outdated Perspectives: While Eagleton’s essay was influential in its time, some critics argue that it fails to adequately engage with more recent developments in literary theory, such as post-colonial studies and queer theory.
• Neglect of Intersectional Analysis: Eagleton’s analysis is often criticized for not fully addressing the intersectionality of social factors, such as race, gender, and class, in shaping literature.

4. Overemphasis on Class Struggle:

• Determinism: Critics argue that Eagleton’s emphasis on class struggle can be overly deterministic, reducing the complexities of literary production and reception to a single factor.
• Neglect of Other Social Factors: Some argue that Eagleton’s focus on class struggle neglects other important social factors, such as gender, race, and sexuality, that shape literature.

5. Limited Attention to the Reader:

• Reader-Oriented Criticism: Critics argue that Eagleton’s approach is primarily author-centered and neglects the role of the reader in shaping the meaning and significance of a literary work.

Books:

1. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 2008.  https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/literary-theory
2. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.
   https://global.oup.com/academic/product/marxism-and-literature-9780198760610
3. Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory. Verso, 2006.
   https://www.versobooks.com/products/435-criticism-and-ideology
4. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
   https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801492228/the-political-unconscious/

Academic Articles:

• Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation).” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, translated by Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, 1971, pp. 127–186.
  https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm
• Eagleton, Terry. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” New Left Review, no. 82, 1973, pp. 3–16. https://newleftreview.org/issues/I82/articles/terry-eagleton-base-and-superstructure-in-marxist-cultural-theory
• Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. Translated by Geoffrey Wall, Routledge, 2006. https://www.routledge.com/A-Theory-of-Literary-Production/Macherey/p/book/9780415378499

Websites:

• Eagleton, Terry. “What Is Literature?” http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/e/Eagleton_T/life.htm
• https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=ijls

1. Marxist Theory:

• Class Struggle and Ideology: Eagleton emphasizes the importance of class struggle and ideology in understanding literature. He argues that literature is not merely a reflection of reality but a product of specific historical and social conditions. For instance, he states, “The working class is the agent of historical revolution not because of its potential ‘consciousness’ (LukAcs), but because of that location within the capitalist mode of production ironically assigned to it by capitalism itself” (Eagleton, 1981, p. 479).  
• Economic Determinism: While acknowledging the limitations of economic determinism, Eagleton suggests that it is crucial to consider the material conditions that shape literary production. He criticizes Deconstruction for its tendency to ignore the economic and social factors underlying textual production.
• Cultural Materialism: Eagleton’s essay can be seen as a precursor to Cultural Materialism, a theory that emphasizes the relationship between literature and material reality. He argues that literature is not just a reflection of ideology but actively contributes to shaping it.

2. Deconstruction:

• Subversion of Metaphysical Closure: Eagleton appreciates Deconstruction’s ability to subvert traditional metaphysical oppositions and challenge the dominant ways of understanding language and literature. He quotes Derrida, “Something always escapes, but it has to pay a heavy toll” (Eagleton, 1981, p. 485).
• Focus on Textual Instability: Eagleton highlights Deconstruction’s focus on the instability and indeterminacy of texts, which allows for a deeper exploration of their underlying meanings. He suggests that Deconstruction’s “hair-raising radicalism” can be valuable in challenging established interpretations.
• Critique of Metaphysical Discourse: Eagleton uses Deconstruction to critique the metaphysical foundations of Western thought. He argues that by exposing the contradictions and limitations of metaphysical discourse, Deconstruction can help liberate us from its constraints.

3. New Historicism:

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Eagleton’s essay foreshadows the interdisciplinary approach of New Historicism, which emphasizes the relationship between literature and its historical and cultural context. By analyzing texts within their specific historical and social contexts, Eagleton provides a more nuanced understanding of their significance.
• Attention to Power and Ideology: Eagleton’s focus on power and ideology aligns with New Historicism’s interest in exploring how literature is implicated in power relations. He argues that texts are not neutral but reflect and contribute to the dominant ideologies of their time.

1. Oversimplification of Marxism:

• Reductionism: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s portrayal of Marxism is overly simplistic and reductionist, ignoring the complexities and nuances of Marxist thought. They contend that his focus on economic determinism and class struggle overlooks other important aspects of Marxist theory, such as the role of culture, ideology, and subjectivity.
• Neglect of Later Marxist Developments: Eagleton’s essay primarily focuses on earlier Marxist thinkers and may not adequately address more recent developments in Marxist theory, such as Althusserian structuralism and Gramscian cultural hegemony.

2. Underestimation of Deconstruction:

• Overemphasis on Ideology: Critics argue that Eagleton’s emphasis on ideology underestimates the radical potential of Deconstruction. They contend that Deconstruction’s focus on textual instability and the subversion of metaphysical oppositions can challenge dominant power structures in ways that Marxist theory may not fully capture.
• Neglect of Deconstruction’s Ethical Dimensions: Eagleton’s analysis may overlook the ethical dimensions of Deconstruction, such as its critique of logocentrism and its emphasis on the importance of difference and plurality.

3. Methodological Limitations:

• Lack of Specificity: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis is too general and lacks the specificity required for a rigorous examination of individual texts. They contend that his approach can be overly abstract and fail to provide concrete insights into literary works.
• Overreliance on Metaphysical Oppositions: While Eagleton criticizes metaphysical oppositions, his own analysis may still be influenced by such binary thinking. Critics argue that a more nuanced understanding of literature requires going beyond these oppositions.

4. Political Implications:

• Conservative Bias: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis has conservative political implications. By emphasizing the limitations of Deconstruction and advocating for a return to Marxist principles, Eagleton may be inadvertently reinforcing dominant power structures.
• Neglect of Alternative Political Perspectives: Critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis overlooks alternative political perspectives, such as feminism, postcolonialism, and queer theory, which may offer different approaches to understanding literature and social change.

Introduction of Ideology and its Imaginary Relation

• Ideology as “Lived” Relation: Eagleton begins by referencing Louis Althusser’s idea that ideology expresses not a direct relation to reality, but rather how individuals live that relation.
  • “Ideology, then, is the expression of the relation between men and their ‘world,’ that is, the (overdetermined) unity of the real relation and the imaginary relation between them and their real conditions of existence” (p. 62).

Critique of Althusser’s Theory of Ideology

• Functionalist and Economistic Aspects: Eagleton critiques Althusser’s theory for being functionalist, reducing ideology to a mechanism for reproducing social relations, and economistic by tying it too closely to the mode of production.
  • “Althusser’s theory is (a) functionalist: it presumes an ‘intention’ on the part of the social formation to reproduce itself” (p. 63).

Ideology as a Practice and Not Merely Misrecognition

• Signifying Practice and Real Relations: Ideology is seen as a set of practical relations, not just a misrecognition of reality, aligning it with a signifying practice.
  • “Ideology, then, is not to be reduced to misrecognition, but is to be seen as signifying a set of practical relations with the ‘real.’” (p. 63).

Distinction Between Propositions and Practices in Ideology

• “Pseudo-statements” in Ideology: Ideological propositions are not straightforward claims about the world but function as “pseudo-statements” tied to emotional or subjective structures.
  • “Ideological ‘propositions’ are only apparently propositions about the real. They are… ‘pseudo-statements,’ para- or ‘virtual’ statements” (p. 64).

Analogy Between Ideology and Literary Fiction

• Non-referential Nature of Ideology and Literature: Both ideology and literary fiction share a non-referential character, focusing not on informing about reality but on expressing lived relations and emotional structures.
  • “Like ideology, literary texts frequently involve cognitive propositions, but those propositions are not present to inform us about the real” (p. 65).

Narrative as Ideology’s Form

• Narrative as Ideological: Narrative is highlighted as a potent ideological form because it provides closure and order, which are essential to the ideological function of stabilizing meaning.
  • “Narrative, far from constituting some ruling-class conspiracy, is a valid and ineradicable mode of all human experience. More precisely, it is the very form of the ideological” (p. 79).

Class Struggle and Narrative

• Narrative in Class Struggle: Eagleton posits that narrative plays a central role in class struggle as it enables subjects to construct coherent identities, a crucial aspect of how ideology operates at the level of signifying practices.
  • “We cannot think, act, or desire except in narrative; it is by narrative that the subject constructs that ‘sutured’ chain of signifiers which grants its true condition of division sufficient ‘imaginary’ coherence to enable it to act” (p. 78).

Modernism’s Challenge to Traditional Narrative

• Deconstructing Narrative in Modernist Texts: Modernist literature often deconstructs the traditional narrative structures, revealing the ideological underpinnings and offering an alternative, more fragmented understanding of reality.
  • “The ‘modernist’ text is simply the one which has incorporated this irony as the very structuration of its discourse” (p. 77).

Conclusion: Ideology’s Inescapability in Human Experience

• Narrative’s Ongoing Role in Ideology: Eagleton concludes that while narrative is ideological, it is also inescapable and remains a fundamental way through which humans experience the world.
  • “Narrative, far from disappearing with the dismantling of class society, will endure, for it is the very form in which the ideological constructs itself” (p. 80).

1. Contribution to Marxist Literary Criticism

• Reconceptualization of Ideology: Eagleton critiques and expands Althusser’s Marxist theory of ideology, moving beyond the notion of ideology as “false consciousness” to view it as a lived, practical relation to reality.
  • “Ideology, then, is the expression of the relation between men and their ‘world,’ that is, the (overdetermined) unity of the real relation and the imaginary relation between them and their real conditions of existence” (p. 62).
• Ideology as Signifying Practice: Eagleton argues that ideology should not be reduced to cognitive misrecognition but understood as signifying practices that articulate how subjects live their relations to material conditions.
  • “Ideology, then, is not to be reduced to misrecognition, but is to be seen as signifying a set of practical relations with the ‘real.’” (p. 63).
• Narrative as Ideological Form: He links narrative to ideology, arguing that narrative closure functions as a mechanism to stabilize and secure dominant social relations.
  • “Narrative, far from constituting some ruling-class conspiracy, is a valid and ineradicable mode of all human experience. More precisely, it is the very form of the ideological” (p. 79).

2. Contribution to Structuralism

• Structure of Ideology: Eagleton critiques the structuralist dimension of Althusser’s work, highlighting how ideology operates at the structural level, particularly through signifying practices.
  • “Althusser’s theory is… structuralist: the social division of labor is a structure of locations to which specific forms of subjectivity are automatically assigned” (p. 63).
• Decoding Ideological “Propositions”: Eagleton emphasizes the structural relationship between ideological propositions and emotive discourses, showing how structuralist methods can decode them into underlying social and emotional intentions.
  • “What differentiates ideological ‘propositions’ from genuinely referential enunciations is that the former may be ‘decoded’ into ‘emotive’ discourse” (p. 64).

3. Contribution to Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction

• Ideology as Non-referential Language: Eagleton draws on post-structuralist and deconstructionist insights to argue that ideological discourse functions as non-referential, focusing on how it produces emotional and social effects rather than accurately describing reality.
  • “Like ideology, literary texts frequently involve cognitive propositions, but those propositions are not present to inform us about the real” (p. 65).
• Deconstructing Ideological Texts: He advocates for a deconstructive reading of ideology and literature, where the contradictions within these texts reveal the repressive mechanisms that stabilize their meaning.
  • “One way in which ideological discourses forestall such deconstruction is by articulating themselves in such a way as to repress the mechanisms of their generation” (p. 66).

4. Contribution to Modernism and Literary Fiction

• Modernist Challenge to Narrative Closure: Eagleton highlights how modernist texts disrupt traditional narrative structures, exposing the artificial closure of narrative that serves ideological purposes.
  • “The ‘modernist’ text is simply the one which has incorporated this irony as the very structuration of its discourse” (p. 77).
• Fiction as Ideological: He suggests that literary fiction and ideology are analogous in their non-referentiality and the way they construct “lived relations” to the real, making fiction an inherently ideological form.
  • “There is another… sense in which ideology and literary fiction are analogous in form” (p. 65).

5. Contribution to Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism

• Psychotic vs. Ideological Misrecognition: Eagleton uses psychoanalytic language to explain how ideological misrecognition can be a necessary support of behavior, akin to a psychotic relation to reality.
  • “My misrecognitions are a necessary support of that ‘lived’ relation to the real which we might, perhaps, term ‘psychotic’” (p. 63).
• Oedipal Textuality and Anti-narrative: He brings in Freudian psychoanalysis to discuss the breakdown of narrative in modernist literature, drawing parallels to the Oedipal crisis where narrative hierarchies are subverted.
  • “At the point of Oedipal crisis, the child rejects the emplotments of genealogy… desiring nothing less than to become its own father. This impossible conundrum… would naturally spell the death of all narrative” (p. 73).

6. Contribution to Critical Theory and Ideological Critique

• Literary Texts as Ideological Practices: Eagleton asserts that literary texts, like ideological practices, are not merely objects but dynamic practices that engage readers in ideological struggle.
  • “What the ‘speech act’ theory of texts crucially emphasizes is that texts are practices. Literary texts do things to us” (p. 66).
• Literature as Propaganda: He provocatively claims that all literature, because of its ideological function, is propagandist, aligning literature with the broader ideological apparatus of society.
  • “All literature is propagandist” (p. 67).

7. Contribution to Semiotics and Discourse Theory

• Materiality of the Signifier: Eagleton engages with semiotic theory, particularly Volosinov, to argue that the materiality of discourse and signification is central to understanding how ideology functions.
  • “The literary text must be grasped wholly in terms of its contextual intentionality—as articulated discourse or parole rendered merely unintelligible once it is deprived of its thrust of concrete effectivity” (p. 66).
• Illocutionary Force of Texts: Eagleton draws on the concept of “speech acts” and semiotics to argue that both ideological and literary texts function as practices with illocutionary effects, shaping readers’ relations to reality.
  • “They [ideological propositions] belong to the ‘illocutionary’ rather than ‘perlocutionary’ class of constative statements” (p. 65).

1. Overemphasis on Ideology in Literature

• Eagleton’s framework may be criticized for reducing literature primarily to a vehicle for ideology, neglecting the aesthetic and imaginative aspects of literary works. By emphasizing the ideological function of narrative and fiction, the richness and diversity of literary forms and their capacity for multiple interpretations might be overshadowed.
  • Critics might argue that his approach risks turning literature into mere political propaganda, minimizing the role of art and creativity.

2. Undermining of Literary Autonomy

• The argument that all literature is essentially ideological or propagandist could be criticized for ignoring the possibility of literary autonomy or the potential for art to exist beyond political or ideological intentions.
  • “All literature is propagandist” (p. 67) could be seen as a sweeping generalization that overlooks literature’s capacity for individual or personal expression that resists political categorization.

3. Limited Engagement with Reader’s Subjectivity

• Eagleton’s focus on signifying practices and ideological structures might be seen as limiting the role of individual readers’ interpretations. His framework places more weight on the role of ideology in shaping literature than on the subjective, diverse ways readers engage with texts.
  • This could be criticized for downplaying how different readers might interpret or resist the ideological meanings embedded in texts.

4. Theoretical Overcomplexity and Abstraction

• Eagleton’s theoretical approach is dense and layered with Marxist, psychoanalytic, and post-structuralist terms, which can make the analysis difficult to follow or overly abstract for readers who seek practical applications or more straightforward literary critique.
  • Critics may argue that this overcomplexity makes his ideas inaccessible to broader audiences, thereby limiting their practical relevance in literary studies.

5. Neglect of Cultural and Historical Specificity

• Eagleton’s broad application of ideological critique may be seen as neglecting the cultural and historical contexts in which literary works are produced and received. His emphasis on ideology as a structural feature risks flattening the specific historical and social factors that shape individual works of literature.
  • The focus on ideology as an overarching structure might fail to account for how particular historical moments and cultural circumstances give rise to diverse literary forms and meanings.

6. Dismissal of Aesthetic and Emotional Value

• By focusing on the ideological function of literary texts, Eagleton arguably downplays the aesthetic and emotional dimensions of literature, which many critics and readers value as essential to the literary experience. His Marxist perspective might be seen as reducing literature to an instrumental or didactic function.
  • This dismissal could be criticized for failing to acknowledge literature’s emotional or psychological impact on readers, which is not always tied to ideological structures.

7. Ideology as an All-Encompassing Explanation

• Eagleton’s insistence that all literature and narrative forms are ideological may be seen as overly deterministic, leaving little room for texts that might resist or subvert ideology in more complex ways than he allows. This could limit a more nuanced understanding of literature’s diverse potential.
  • Critics might argue that this perspective oversimplifies the relationship between text and ideology, ignoring instances where literature can disrupt or escape ideological constraints.

Introduction: Jameson’s Distinctive Style

• Terry Eagleton begins by acknowledging Fredric Jameson’s notable and distinctive style. His writing is both dense and metaphorically rich, and Eagleton claims that Jameson’s style is as much a part of his theoretical output as the content itself.
  • “Jameson composes rather than writes his texts, and his prose carries an intense libidinal charge, a burnished elegance and unruffled poise.” (Eagleton, p. 14)

The Politics of Jameson’s Style

• Eagleton focuses on how Jameson’s style is shaped by his political commitments. Unlike literary critics such as Barthes, Jameson’s historical responsibilities lead him to adopt a more restrained style, aligning his writing with the political struggles he engages with.
  • “Jameson’s historical responsibilities prevent him from adopting the ‘sumptuous and perverse’ style of Barthes, even if he secretly wishes it.” (Eagleton, p. 15)

Dialectical Nature of Jameson’s Writing

• Jameson’s style balances between two extremes: flamboyance and academic rigidity. He avoids the “anaemic transparency” of Anglo-American writing and the obscurity of European style, creating a discourse that is simultaneously thick and lucid.
  • “The excitement of reading Jameson is to see each time how this trick will be pulled off—how his discourse will just escape an excessive molecular density on one hand, and a monotonous ‘molarity’ on the other.” (Eagleton, p. 16)

Jameson’s Style as Utopian Gesture

• According to Eagleton, Jameson’s style reflects his utopian vision of a future society. His stylistic excesses compensate for political goals that are historically postponed. Thus, style becomes a form of political displacement for unrealized goals.
  • “Style in Jameson is the excess or self-delight which escapes even his own most strenuously analytical habits… this is the truly utopian dimension of his work.” (Eagleton, p. 16)

Jameson’s Use of Non-Marxist Theory

• Eagleton critiques Jameson’s engagement with non-Marxist theory, suggesting that while he appropriates ideas from various thinkers, he often leaves them relatively untransformed. This reflects a tension between his desire to engage dialectically with bourgeois theory and his commitment to Marxist materialism.
  • “Jameson emerges as one of the great appropriators, ranging with enviable erudition over almost every sector of the ‘humanities,’ mobilizing their insights for his own ends.” (Eagleton, p. 17)

Theoretical vs. Political Action

• Eagleton observes that Jameson’s focus on theoretical clarity sometimes risks subordinating political action to theoretical work. In the context of late capitalism, Jameson believes that political action must be preceded by a rigorous theoretical demystification of culture and reification.
  • “To see straight at all in the heartlands of late monopoly capitalism, we must first of all theorize; and since what prevents us from seeing straight is essentially reification, the most appropriate mode of theorizing will accordingly be Hegelian Marxism.” (Eagleton, p. 19)

Ambivalence of Commentary and Critique

• Eagleton argues that Jameson’s style is characterized by an ambivalence between commentary and critique. While Jameson critiques bourgeois culture, he also generously appropriates and respects its autonomy, which reflects the Hegelian nature of his Marxism.
  • “This ambivalence springs from Jameson’s relation to bourgeois culture, at once over-appropriative and over-generous.” (Eagleton, p. 20)

Conclusion: Jameson as a Marxist Critic

• Eagleton concludes by reflecting on Jameson’s dual role as a Marxist critic and a thinker deeply influenced by European philosophy. His ability to transform European thought into his own, while remaining true to his Marxist commitments, is what makes him a unique intellectual figure.
  • “Jameson reinvents these materials to the point where he appears master of what, officially speaking, he is mediator.” (Eagleton, p. 21)