Day: September 22, 2024

Introduction: “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton

“The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton first appeared on the pages of the influential journal Cultural Critique in the winter of 1985-1986. This groundbreaking piece, published in the second issue of the journal, significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory. Eagleton’s exploration of the complex relationship between the subject and the literary text challenged prevailing assumptions and offered a new perspective on the role of literature in shaping our understanding of the world.

Summary of “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton

1. Introduction to the Context
   Terry Eagleton introduces the essay’s context, aimed at educators grappling with applying modern cultural theory in British schools, particularly those in multiracial, working-class urban areas. He outlines how English literature is being taught through a critical lens in a pedagogical framework aimed at rethinking traditional ideologies.
   “The struggle for progressive political methods of English teaching is clearly vital.” (p. 96)
2. Production of Subjects and Subjectivity
   Eagleton argues that society produces human subjects through various institutions like the family, church, and school. Literature plays a significant role in producing “subjectivities” – ways of being that align with societal needs. The creation of subjects is thus historically contingent, just like the production of goods.
   “There is a history of techniques for the production and reproduction of human subjects.” (p. 96)
3. Literature as a ‘Moral Technology’
   Eagleton introduces the idea of literature as a “moral technology,” which shapes and assesses subjective emotional and moral responses, often in ways that serve social control. Literature, in this framework, molds subjects to conform to societal norms.
   “The particular function of a moral technology is to map, measure, assess, and certify the emotive and experiential aspects of subjectivity.” (p. 97)
4. Depoliticizing Subjectivity
   The essay emphasizes how literature, particularly in liberal humanist education, creates a depoliticized form of subjectivity, which is an end in itself. This subjectivity may appear free and autonomous but is subtly bound to capitalist ideologies, presenting itself as a form of control.
   “We are bound as firmly as we are precisely because we do not seem to be bound at all.” (p. 99)
5. Literature as Formalism
   Eagleton discusses literature as a form of “moral formalism,” where the focus is not on specific moral content but on the cultivation of sensibility, imagination, and creativity. These traits are seen as universal values that are abstract and detached from any concrete political or social reality.
   “Literature is that process in which the quality of the response is more significant than the quality of the object.” (p. 99)
6. Liberal Humanism’s Ideological Function
   Liberal humanism, Eagleton argues, masks its ideological role by promoting literature as a form of personal growth and creativity. However, this growth is constrained within a political framework that prioritizes maintaining the existing social order. Literature, under this ideology, fosters a form of subjectivity that aligns with capitalist society.
   “Liberal humanism guards and treasures this interior enclave as the one defense against deforming external forces.” (p. 100)
7. Contradictions in Liberal Humanism
   Eagleton points out that liberal humanism is self-contradictory in its desire for peace, justice, and personal growth, while simultaneously failing to address the necessary conflicts and breaks required to achieve these goals. Liberal humanism favors gradualism, ignoring the transformative potential of political action.
   “Liberal humanism appears to speak only of growth, gradualism, evolutionary continuity.” (p. 102)
8. Critique of ‘Immediate Experience’
   Eagleton criticizes the liberal humanist emphasis on “immediate experience” as abstract and detached from political reality. He argues that every experience is shaped by social and historical contexts, making the notion of pure personal growth or experience nonsensical outside a political framework.
   “‘Immediate experience’ in itself is nothing; it is only by the political interpretation of experience that existence becomes fruitful.” (p. 103)
9. Language and Power
   Eagleton concludes by noting that language is not merely a medium for creative exploration but a tool of power and struggle. He warns that the liberal humanist view of language and literature as tools for personal enrichment ignores their role in political and social conflicts.
   “Language is power, conflict, and struggle – weapon as much as medium, poison as well as cure.” (p. 104)

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton  to Literary Theory/Theories

Key Contributions:

1. Marxist Critique of Literature and Subjectivity
   Eagleton expands on Marxist theory by arguing that literature is instrumental in producing subjectivities that align with the needs of capitalist society. He critiques how literature depoliticizes the subject and hides power relations. “Any society will produce those modes of subjectivity which it deems in general appropriate to the furtherance of its own ends.” (p. 98)
2. Critique of Liberal Humanism
   Eagleton’s analysis challenges the liberal humanist belief in the autonomy of literature and the individual. He exposes how literature, under this ideology, actually serves capitalist interests by creating subjects who are supposedly “free” but are, in fact, shaped by dominant ideologies. “This form of subjectivity is the space of our freedom and creativity – which is to say, the place where we are bound most firmly to the capitalist social order.” (p. 99)
3. Post-structuralist Influence
   Eagleton’s notion that subjectivity is socially constructed rather than innate aligns with post-structuralist ideas about the instability of meaning and the role of power in shaping identity. He critiques the “universal” subjectivity promoted by liberal humanism. “The very form of our subjection lies in our trust in a subjectivity transcendental of all determinations.” (p. 100)
4. Critique of Aesthetic Formalism
   Eagleton critiques the literary tradition that privileges form over content, suggesting that this detachment from political and social realities helps maintain the existing social order. “The task of the moral technology of Literature is to produce an historically peculiar form of human subject who is sensitive, receptive, imaginative and so on… about nothing in particular.” (p. 99)
5. Pedagogical Implications
   By addressing how literature is taught in schools, Eagleton contributes to critical pedagogy, arguing that education in literature shapes students into subjects that conform to the existing social order. “In this ideological climate, the struggle for progressive political methods of English teaching is clearly vital.” (p. 96)

Examples of Critiques Through “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton  

Explanation of Critiques:

1. Depoliticization of Morality
   In King Lear, despite the play’s potential to inspire political solidarity with the oppressed, Eagleton’s framework critiques how literary criticism tends to focus on personal emotional responses, thereby weakening its political potential.
2. Reinforcement of Bourgeois Subjectivity
   Pride and Prejudice trains readers to embrace personal virtues and individual morality that fit into capitalist social structures, leading to the production of bourgeois subjectivity.
3. Moral Emptiness in Capitalist Society
   In The Great Gatsby, Eagleton’s perspective would highlight the way literature critiques societal ideals like the American Dream but does so by focusing on individual experiences of failure, which removes the political context of class struggle.
4. Subjectivity Focus Over Political Critique
   Wuthering Heights provides intense emotional experiences but, under Eagleton’s critique, is seen as producing subjectivity that prevents readers from questioning class and gender hierarchies, thus reinforcing oppressive social structures.

Criticism Against “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton

• Overemphasis on Ideology
  Eagleton’s critique of literature as a “moral technology” shaping subjectivities primarily for social control might be seen as overly deterministic. Critics argue that not all literature operates as a tool of ideological reproduction, and many literary works foster critical thinking and social change rather than simply reinforcing dominant ideologies.
• Reduction of Literary Experience to Politics
  By focusing heavily on the political implications of literature, Eagleton might be criticized for reducing the complexity of literary experience to political and ideological dimensions. Critics could argue that Eagleton overlooks the aesthetic, emotional, and imaginative value that literature offers to readers beyond its ideological function.
• Dismissal of Individual Agency
  Eagleton’s argument that subjectivity is constructed almost entirely by social forces could be criticized for downplaying individual agency. His view might be seen as too structuralist, implying that readers have little capacity to resist or reinterpret the ideological messages embedded in literary works.
• Narrow View of Liberal Humanism
  Eagleton critiques liberal humanism for its supposed role in depoliticizing subjectivity, but some might argue that this view oversimplifies the diverse and often critical perspectives within liberal humanist thought. Not all liberal humanists ignore political and social critique, and many engage with literature as a means of questioning and transforming societal norms.
• Lack of Engagement with Reader Response
  Eagleton’s essay focuses on how literature shapes subjectivity in line with social and political ideologies, but it does not adequately consider how individual readers might actively interpret, resist, or challenge these ideologies. Critics may argue that Eagleton’s analysis neglects the role of reader response theory, which emphasizes the active role of readers in constructing meaning.
• Generalization of Literature’s Role
  Eagleton’s argument that literature functions as a tool of social control may be seen as a generalization. Critics could argue that literature’s role varies widely across time periods, genres, and cultures, and that his analysis doesn’t account for this diversity or for works that actively challenge dominant power structures.
• Undermining the Aesthetic Value of Literature
  Eagleton’s focus on literature as a form of ideological control may be criticized for undermining its aesthetic value. Critics might argue that literature also serves as an art form with intrinsic value, not just as a means of shaping or controlling subjectivity within a political framework.
• Disregard for the Complexities of Literary Creation
  Some may argue that Eagleton’s view of literature as part of an ideological apparatus overlooks the creative and complex process of literary creation. Authors often engage in nuanced and multifaceted ways with their cultural and political environments, which Eagleton’s framework may not fully capture.

Representative Quotations from “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton

1. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
   https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/literary-theory
2. Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Blackwell, 1990.
   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470694192
3. Eagleton, Terry. “The Rise of English.” Falling into Theory: Conflicting Views on Reading Literature, edited by David Richter, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000, pp. 34-40.
   https://archive.org/details/fallingintotheory
4. Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 1971.
   https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm
5. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.
   https://archive.org/details/marxismliteratur00will
6. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Basic Books, 2010. https://archive.org/details/interpretationof0000freu

Introduction: “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

“The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton, first appeared in 1988 in the journal Poetics Today, is considered a significant contribution to the field of literature and literary theory due to its incisive analysis of the concept of aesthetics and its ideological underpinnings. Eagleton argues that aesthetics, far from being a neutral or objective category, is deeply intertwined with social, political, and economic structures. By examining the historical development of aesthetics and its relationship to various cultural and philosophical discourses, Eagleton offers a compelling critique of the notion that art and beauty are autonomous and independent of broader social concerns.

Summary of “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

• Aesthetics and Power:
  • Aesthetics is not solely about art but a broader “program of social, psychical, and political reconstruction.”
  • Eagleton links aesthetics to the political concept of hegemony, stating, “It denotes instead a whole program of social, psychical and political reconstruction on the part of the early European bourgeoisie.”
• Aesthetics as a Discourse of the Body:
  • Aesthetics mediates between sensation and reason, initially introduced by Baumgarten as a “sister of logic.”
  • Aesthetics is the bridge between material life (the body, sensations) and intellectual life (reason and thoughts), addressing how reason and sensibility integrate to dominate human experience.
• Shift from Coercion to Hegemony:
  • Eagleton interprets the aesthetic as a method to “rule and inform our sensuous life from within while allowing it to thrive in all its relative autonomy,” transitioning from coercive power to consensual hegemony.
• Schiller and Aesthetic Education:
  • Friedrich Schiller’s work focuses on social hegemony, advocating for the modulation of the psyche through aesthetics, making it a subtle yet powerful force for ideological control.
  • “The aesthetic modulation of the psyche” plays a central role in softening Kant’s rigid rationalism, blending ethics and aesthetics into a cohesive system of social control.
• Aesthetics and Manners:
  • Aesthetics are involved in disciplining the body and converting morality into style. “Manners,” as Eagleton describes, are a “crucial hinge between ethics and aesthetics.”
  • Social practices become aestheticized, where “ethical ideology loses its unpleasantly coercive force and reappears as a principle of spontaneous consensus.”
• Aesthetic as Social Control:
  • The aesthetic subject internalizes the law as “the very principle of its free identity” and works “all by itself,” resembling the self-regulating subject in Althusser’s ideological theory.
  • Aesthetic judgments mask deeper ideological control, as noted by Eagleton, “Structures of power must become structures of feeling, and the name for this mediation… is the aesthetic.”
• The Sublime and the Beautiful:
  • Eagleton contrasts beauty as a “consensual power” with the sublime, which is “coercive.”
  • This distinction reflects the tension between the softer, hegemonic forms of power (beauty) and more overt, authoritarian forms (sublime).
• Ideology and Aesthetic Judgment:
  • Aesthetic judgments, Eagleton argues, are “constative” but fundamentally performative and ideological, operating as emotive utterances while posing as objective truths.
  • This duality ties aesthetics to ideology, where subjective experiences are universalized and enforced as societal norms.
• Hegel and the Aestheticization of Reality:
  • Hegel sought to reconcile subjectivity and freedom with the alienation experienced by individuals in bourgeois society. He projected “subjectivity into the object itself” to achieve unity, leading to an “aestheticization of the whole of reality.”
• Aesthetics and Bourgeois Ideology:
  • Eagleton points out that bourgeois ideology uses aesthetics as a means to make the world feel more hospitable, even though bourgeois values often contradict this.
  • The aesthetic provides a sense of community and unity in bourgeois society, standing in for the failures of both the coercive state and fragmented civil society.
  • However, Eagleton notes the precariousness of this unity, commenting on how “human unity must be…rooted in nothing more resilient than the vagaries of aesthetic judgment.”
• Critique of Bourgeois Individualism:
  • Aesthetics emerges as a critique of bourgeois individualism, and while it serves as an ideological tool for the ruling class, it also offers glimpses of utopian critique, particularly in its potential for fostering empathy and shared human experience.
• Conclusion – Aesthetics and Materialism:
  • Eagleton concludes by suggesting that aesthetics, originally a “supplement to reason,” now poses a threat to reason, challenging the division between reason and sensation.
  • He foresees the next stage of aesthetic thought moving toward a materialist perspective, citing the works of Marx and Freud, who approach aesthetics from the vantage of the “laboring body” and the “desiring body.”

Key Quotations:

1. “The aesthetic, in other words, marks an historic shift from what we might now, in Gramscian terms, call coercion to hegemony.”
2. “Aesthetics is thus the ‘sister’ of logic, a kind of inferior feminine analogue of reason, at the level of material life.”
3. “The bourgeoisie has won certain historic victories within the political state; but the problem with such conflicts is that, in rendering the Law perceptible as a discourse, they threaten to denaturalize it.”
4. “Pleasurable conduct is the true index of successful social hegemony, self-delight the very mark of social submission.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

• Reduction of Aesthetics to Ideology:
  • Critics argue that Eagleton reduces the entire field of aesthetics to a mere tool of bourgeois ideology, neglecting the complexities and nuances of aesthetic experience. By viewing all aesthetic judgments through the lens of power and ideology, he overlooks the autonomy of art and its potential for subversion and resistance.
• Overemphasis on Marxist Framework:
  • Eagleton’s analysis is heavily reliant on Marxist theory, which some critics feel limits his ability to engage with aesthetic theory in a broader, more interdisciplinary way. This rigid Marxist lens might oversimplify the historical and cultural dimensions of aesthetics, focusing primarily on class and power dynamics.
• Neglect of Aesthetic Pleasure and Artistic Value:
  • By focusing on the ideological functions of aesthetics, Eagleton is accused of downplaying or ignoring the intrinsic pleasures and values that people derive from art and beauty. His analysis tends to disregard the emotional and subjective responses individuals have to art, reducing aesthetic pleasure to a function of social control.
• Simplification of Kant and Other Philosophers:
  • Eagleton’s critique of philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Edmund Burke is seen by some as overly reductive. Critics claim that he simplifies complex philosophical concepts, particularly Kant’s notion of “disinterestedness,” to fit his argument about bourgeois ideology, thus missing the depth and subtleties of their aesthetic theories.
• Insufficient Engagement with Postmodern Aesthetics:
  • Eagleton’s focus on the Enlightenment and bourgeois aesthetic theory is critiqued for not adequately addressing postmodern developments in aesthetics. The text has been seen as somewhat dated or lacking engagement with more contemporary critiques of aesthetics that explore postmodernism, globalization, or digital culture.
• Overgeneralization of Bourgeois Society:
  • Some critics suggest that Eagleton tends to overgeneralize the bourgeoisie’s use of aesthetics, implying a monolithic control over art and culture. This neglects the diversity within bourgeois culture and the potential for alternative interpretations and uses of aesthetics within different social contexts.
• Undermining Aesthetic Autonomy:
  • Eagleton is criticized for undermining the idea of aesthetic autonomy— the belief that art can exist independently of politics and ideology. By treating all aesthetics as fundamentally ideological, he dismisses the possibility that art and aesthetic experiences could transcend social and political constraints.

Representative Quotations from “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” by Terry Eagleton

1. Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 2001.
   https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm
2. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
   https://archive.org/details/gramsci-prison-notebooks
3. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
4. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar, Hackett Publishing, 1987.
5. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
6. Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Wiley-Blackwell, 1990.
7. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Translated by Alan Sheridan, W. W. Norton & Company, 1977.
   
   

Introduction: “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

“Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton is an influential essay that first appeared in the Spring 2000 issue of the journal New Literary History. This essay is a significant contribution to the fields of literature and literary theory because it revisits and challenges the traditional Marxist concept of the base and superstructure. Eagleton argues that the relationship between these two concepts is much more complex and dynamic than previously thought. He emphasizes that the base (the economic system) and the superstructure (the cultural and ideological systems) are not simply cause and effect but rather mutually influence and shape each other. This essay has been widely discussed and debated, and it continues to be an important resource for understanding the complex interplay between economics and culture.

Summary of “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Money as a Meta-Good
   • Eagleton opens by discussing how money functions as a “meta-good” in capitalist society. It facilitates the pursuit of various desires and lifestyles without effort. He humorously imagines an alien visitor baffled by the contradiction in human behavior, where money is considered vital but also despised: “The alien would soon find himself puzzling over the performative contradiction between what we said about money and what we did with it” (Eagleton, 232).
2. Contradictions in Economic and Cultural Perceptions
   • Eagleton argues that the discrepancy between money’s importance and contempt is a “genuine conundrum” about its ontological status. He references Marx’s “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” to explore the paradoxical nature of money as both “everything and nothing” (233). This reflects the larger base-superstructure contradiction between economic reality (base) and cultural morality (superstructure).
3. Wealth and Power as Necessary Conditions
   • Drawing from the philosopher Francis Hutcheson, Eagleton explains that wealth and power are not fundamental human desires but essential conditions for achieving other aspirations. He asserts that money is “the capacity of capacities,” a tool that enables various human goals (234).
4. The Economic Base and its Role in Culture
   • Eagleton emphasizes that while the economic base is not the most “precious thing in life,” it is a necessary condition for most human activities, including cultural production. He notes that even socialism requires advanced material conditions, as “socialism is only possible on the basis of reasonably advanced material conditions” (234). Without this, attempts to develop a socialist state could lead to authoritarianism.
5. Culture’s Relative Autonomy from Material Conditions
   • Eagleton critiques both left-wing and right-wing views on the relationship between culture and material conditions. He argues that culture becomes relatively autonomous as a result of material conditions, stating, “art becomes relatively autonomous of its material conditions precisely by being more firmly integrated into the economic” (235). This autonomy allows culture to critique its surrounding conditions.
6. Base and Superstructure Model
   • Eagleton defends the base-superstructure model, arguing that it is not inherently hierarchical or deterministic, but acknowledges its limitations. He critiques the simplistic view that the superstructure (law, culture, ideology) is entirely determined by the economic base, noting that “a school forms part of the superstructure when it has its students salute the national flag, but not when it teaches them to tie their shoelaces” (239).
7. Superstructures and Social Contradictions
   • According to Eagleton, superstructures arise because the economic base is internally contradictory, and their role is to manage these contradictions in favor of the ruling class. He states, “superstructures are necessary…because the productive activity…generates certain social contradictions” (239). Thus, the superstructure is a flexible concept, not rigidly tied to specific institutions or functions.
8. Cultural Materialism and the Future of Socialism
   • Eagleton discusses the concept of “cultural materialism,” which seeks to reconcile the material base with cultural development. He notes that socialism’s long-term goal is to create conditions where people can live by culture rather than economics: “the project of socialism is to try to lay down the kinds of material conditions in which…they will be able to live by culture a great deal more than they do now” (240).
9. Historical Materialism and the Role of Culture
   • In the final sections, Eagleton ties his argument to historical materialism, asserting that the economic is foundational, but culture will become increasingly important as society progresses beyond scarcity and toil. He ends by quoting Oliver Goldsmith to emphasize that culture is “superfluity” built into human nature, necessary yet not reducible to purely economic terms (237-240).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Revisiting and Nuancing Marxist Theory
   • Eagleton’s essay significantly contributes to the ongoing conversation within Marxist Literary Theory, specifically concerning the relationship between the economic base and the cultural superstructure. He addresses how traditional Marxist theory has often been misinterpreted or reduced to economic determinism. Eagleton critiques this simplification by emphasizing the dialectical nature of the relationship: “The base/superstructure model has something valuable to say…though this is nowadays a proportion smaller than those who believe in the Virgin Birth” (Eagleton, 237). By reaffirming the model’s relevance, Eagleton defends its continued applicability in analyzing culture in a capitalist society, arguing that the superstructure can have a degree of autonomy while still being rooted in the base.
2. Cultural Materialism and the Role of Autonomy
   • Eagleton extends the theory of Cultural Materialism by explaining how culture, while economically conditioned, gains relative autonomy under certain historical conditions. This autonomy allows culture to critique its own material origins, a point of significant importance for literary criticism. He states, “Art becomes relatively autonomous of its material conditions precisely by being more firmly integrated into the economic” (Eagleton, 235). This idea that culture can resist commodification while being produced within a capitalist economy has shaped how scholars think about the political function of literature and art.
3. Critique of Postmodernism and Liberal Theories
   • Eagleton’s essay also engages with Postmodernist and Liberal Theories by critiquing their suspicion of power and material conditions. He argues that only a materialist framework, rooted in economic realities, can fully explain culture’s contradictions. He writes, “Only liberals or postmodernists can afford to be suspicious of power. It is selflessness here which is ideological” (Eagleton, 235). Eagleton’s critique of these theories contributes to the broader debate on ideology, reminding literary theorists of the importance of material conditions in shaping culture, rather than abstract notions of autonomy or individualism.
4. Revitalizing the Base-Superstructure Debate in Cultural Criticism
   • Eagleton revitalizes the Base-Superstructure Debate within cultural and literary criticism by highlighting the dynamic, rather than static, relationship between these spheres. He dismantles the misconception that the superstructure is simply a passive reflection of the base, asserting instead that cultural forms actively interact with and sometimes resist their economic conditions. As he points out, “Superstructures are necessary in a Marxist view…because the productive activity to which these bodies give rise generates certain social contradictions” (Eagleton, 239). This approach encourages literary critics to explore the nuanced ways in which literature and other cultural forms are influenced by, but also challenge, their economic foundations.
5. Autotelism and Resistance to Commodification in Literature
   • Eagleton introduces the concept of Autotelism—the idea that literature and art, in asserting themselves as ends in themselves, resist the commodification that defines their economic context. He argues that literature, by claiming “to be its own end, ground, and raison d’être,” opposes the commodifying tendencies of capitalism (Eagleton, 235). This concept contributes to Aesthetic Theory and Marxist Criticism, offering a way to understand how literary texts can be politically resistant despite being produced within a commodified cultural economy.
6. Historical Materialism and Literary Theory
   • Eagleton’s reaffirmation of Historical Materialism—the idea that material conditions shape history and culture—has significant implications for literary theory. He suggests that the study of literature must always consider the historical and material context of its production: “It is what we do which lies at the bottom of our language games” (Eagleton, 238). This grounding of literary criticism in material conditions aligns with Marxist Historicism, pushing literary theorists to interrogate the socio-economic contexts that give rise to particular literary forms and genres.
7. Criticism of Reductionism in Cultural Theories
   • Eagleton critiques the reductionism often found in Culturalist Theories, which either sever culture from its material base or reduce culture entirely to an expression of economic conditions. He argues that culture is neither completely autonomous nor entirely determined by the base but operates within a dialectical relationship with it: “The point of a materialist criticism, then, is to bring to the artifact a kind of double optic” (Eagleton, 240). This dual perspective, where culture is understood both as a product of material conditions and as having a degree of independence, encourages more complex readings of literary texts in relation to their socio-economic contexts.
8. Superfluity and Culture as Surplus
   • Eagleton’s idea that culture is a kind of “superfluity” or surplus to biological needs also contributes to Cultural and Literary Theory. He draws on Marx’s concept of surplus value to explain how culture, though not necessary for survival, is integral to human expression and civilization: “Culture is itself superfluity, that which is strictly surplus to biological need” (Eagleton, 237). This framing challenges literary theorists to consider the role of excess and surplus in cultural production, offering new ways to think about art and literature as both products of and reactions to material surplus.
9. Integration of Marxist Aesthetic Theory
   • Eagleton’s essay integrates Marxist Aesthetic Theory into his analysis, particularly through the concept of art as a critique of its own conditions. He argues that art, in asserting its autonomy, becomes a form of critique against the utilitarianism of capitalism: “Autonomy frees you from being the hired hack of the rulers, allows art to become for the first time critique” (Eagleton, 235). This perspective contributes to literary theory by positioning art and literature as sites of resistance within a capitalist economy, thus encouraging scholars to explore the political potential of literary forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Overemphasis on Economic Determinism
   • While Eagleton critiques overly deterministic interpretations of the base-superstructure model, some critics might argue that his framework still places too much emphasis on the economic base as the primary determinant of cultural and ideological forms. This could lead to reductive readings of literature and culture, where complex cultural phenomena are overly simplified as reflections of economic conditions.
2. Limited Scope of Cultural Autonomy
   • Eagleton’s claim that culture gains “relative autonomy” from the economic base may be criticized for not fully accounting for the true independence of cultural production. Some critics might argue that Eagleton’s view of autonomy is too constrained by Marxist orthodoxy, not allowing for a fuller recognition of how culture can operate independently of economic forces.
3. Neglect of Postmodernist Insights
   • Eagleton’s dismissal of postmodernist skepticism toward power and ideology may be seen as overly harsh. Critics could argue that postmodernism offers valuable insights into the fragmentation of power and the multiplicity of cultural narratives, which Eagleton seems to downplay in favor of a more unified, Marxist view of cultural production.
4. Simplistic View of Superstructure Functions
   • Eagleton’s approach to the superstructure, which he argues functions primarily to manage social contradictions in favor of the ruling class, may be viewed as reductive. Critics might claim that this overlooks the complexity and diversity of superstructural institutions, many of which may serve purposes beyond simply maintaining the status quo.
5. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
   • Eagleton’s analysis, like much Marxist theory, tends to focus primarily on Western capitalist societies. Some critics may point out that his framework does not sufficiently engage with non-Western or postcolonial contexts, where the relationship between base and superstructure may operate differently due to different historical and material conditions.
6. Resistance to Post-Marxist Theories
   • Eagleton’s insistence on the continued relevance of the base-superstructure model may be critiqued by those who favor post-Marxist or neo-Marxist theories, which incorporate more flexible, pluralistic approaches to culture and economics. Some might argue that Eagleton’s defense of the model is outdated in light of these more contemporary frameworks.
7. Potential for Ideological Dogmatism
   • By maintaining a strong commitment to historical materialism, Eagleton runs the risk of promoting a somewhat dogmatic approach to literary and cultural criticism. Critics may argue that his reliance on Marxist categories limits the scope of analysis, potentially excluding alternative perspectives on culture that do not fit neatly into the base-superstructure dichotomy.
8. Underdeveloped Treatment of Aesthetic Experience
   • Although Eagleton touches on the autonomy of art and culture, some critics may argue that his treatment of aesthetic experience and the role of art in society is underdeveloped. The focus on the political and economic aspects of culture may overlook the personal, emotional, and subjective dimensions of literary and artistic works.
9. Ambiguity in Defining Cultural Autonomy
   • Eagleton’s concept of “relative autonomy” may be seen as ambiguous or vague, leading to confusion about the exact relationship between culture and material conditions. Some critics may argue that he does not provide a clear enough framework for determining how and when culture can resist or transcend economic forces.

Representative Quotations from “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Base and Superstructure Revisited” by Terry Eagleton

1. Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Routledge, 2002.  https://www.routledge.com/Marxism-and-Literary-Criticism/Eagleton/p/book/9780415285841
2. Williams, Raymond. Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory. NLB, 1973.
3. Althusser, Louis. For Marx. Verso, 2005.
4. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
5. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
6. Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Blackwell, 1990.
7. Lukács, Georg. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. MIT Press, 1971.