Month: September 2024

Introduction: “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

“The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton, first appeared in 1967 in the journal New Blackfriars, is considered a significant contribution to the fields of literature and literary theory. Eagleton argues that liberalism, while valuable in promoting individual rights and freedoms, ultimately fails to address the underlying social and economic inequalities that perpetuate injustice. He critiques liberalism’s emphasis on formal equality and its neglect of the structural power imbalances that shape society. This essay helped to establish Eagleton as a leading figure in Marxist literary criticism and continues to be widely discussed and debated in academic circles.

Summary of “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

• The Focus on Liberal Christian Tradition
  Terry Eagleton critiques Rosemary Haughton’s book as a significant contribution to liberal Christian thought. It successfully connects psychological, literary, and Christian insights to explore themes like love, freedom, and maturity in personal relationships. However, Eagleton argues that the book is deeply embedded in the liberal tradition, focusing on personal experience and neglecting broader societal structures, politics, and history.
• The Limits of Individualism and Personal Experience
  Eagleton notes that Haughton’s focus is primarily on individual experience and the psychological dimensions of human relationships. This leads to a narrow interpretation of what it means to be human. While the personal aspects are sensitively handled, the exclusion of political and historical struggles, collective actions, and broader social commitments weakens the analysis of humanity.
• Critique of Christian Liberalism’s Inward Focus
  According to Eagleton, Christian liberalism, as represented in Haughton’s work, emphasizes an inward spiritual experience over external social realities. This creates a dualism between the personal and societal, where external actions and institutions are seen as mere aids to personal spiritual growth, rather than integral components of human experience. Eagleton argues that Christianity should integrate personal and political dimensions rather than treating them separately.
• The Problem of Liberalism’s Open-Endedness
  Eagleton critiques the liberal emphasis on openness and exploration without commitment to specific truths or actions. He draws parallels to Mill, Arnold, and Leavis in this regard, suggesting that Haughton’s perspective prioritizes openness and self-exploration over firm commitment to political or religious truths. This results in a version of Christianity that lacks depth and fails to address real social change.
• The Dualism of Flesh and Spirit
  Haughton’s approach reinforces a Cartesian dualism between flesh and spirit, where the body and social institutions are necessary but secondary to the spiritual life. Eagleton challenges this view, asserting that Christian and political radicalism involve transforming the “flesh” or material reality into a language through which the spirit is expressed. This holistic view contrasts with the liberal tendency to separate the inward and external aspects of life.
• Inadequate Integration of the Social and Political
  Eagleton contends that liberal Christianity, as portrayed in Haughton’s book, alienates political and social behaviors from the authentic self. He argues that political and social structures are not external constraints but integral parts of human experience and freedom. By relegating politics to the external, liberalism fails to engage with the full complexity of human life.
• The Role of Rules and Culture
  Eagleton praises Haughton’s metaphor of learning the rules of perspective in art, suggesting that this is an insightful description of how human culture works. Humans internalize rules and conventions that make their experiences meaningful. However, Eagleton believes Haughton undercuts this insight by treating rules as superficial scaffolding rather than essential structures for human life and relationships.
• The Need for Radical Transformation
  In conclusion, Eagleton calls for a more radical approach that surpasses the limits of liberalism. He argues that a true Christian and political radicalism must integrate personal experience with social and political realities, rather than treating them as separate or in opposition. Until this integration is achieved, liberalism will remain limited in its ability to effect meaningful social change.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

This excerpt from Eagleton’s “The Limits of Liberalism” critiques Rosemary Haughton’s book “Trying to be Human.” Here are some key points of Eagleton’s argument, focusing on specific theories from the text:

• Limited Scope: Eagleton argues Haughton focuses too narrowly on the personal and psychological aspects of Christianity, neglecting the social, political, and historical context (p. 353). He suggests a more complete picture requires considering collective action and social struggles (p. 353).
• Liberal Oversimplification: Eagleton criticizes Haughton’s portrayal of Christianity as solely promoting openness, exploration, and self-discovery. He argues Christianity also has a history, doctrines, and commitments that define it (p. 354).
• Individual vs. Societal: Eagleton finds fault with Haughton’s view of Christianity opposing social structures and institutions. He argues that authentic human relationships and communication exist within these structures, not entirely separate from them (p. 354-355).
• False Duality: Eagleton criticizes the book’s portrayal of a split between “spirit” and “flesh.” He argues that external structures like laws, customs, and institutions are not just limitations but also the language through which the spirit expresses itself (p. 354-356).
• Importance of Rules: Eagleton disagrees with the book’s suggestion that rules and codes are merely external constraints on authenticity. He argues that interiorizing them is essential for human culture and authentic living (p. 356-357).

Examples of Critiques Through “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

• Narrow Focus on Personal Experience
  Eagleton is criticized for placing too much emphasis on the personal, psychological, and individual dimensions of Christianity, neglecting broader societal, political, and historical perspectives.
• Overemphasis on Dualism
  Eagleton’s critique of liberalism often hinges on a dualistic view of personal versus societal, or flesh versus spirit, which some critics argue oversimplifies the relationship between individual and collective experience.
• Lack of Engagement with the Positive Aspects of Liberalism
  Critics might argue that Eagleton fails to acknowledge the strengths of liberalism, such as its emphasis on personal freedom, individual rights, and openness to multiple viewpoints, which can be seen as vital in a pluralistic society.
• Dismissal of Exploration and Openness
  Eagleton’s critique of liberalism’s emphasis on openness, exploration, and personal honesty may be seen as too harsh, especially since these values are often considered crucial for intellectual and spiritual growth.
• Insufficient Consideration of Modern Liberal Thought
  Eagleton’s critique largely focuses on traditional liberalism without sufficiently addressing the evolution of liberal thought, especially its more recent attempts to incorporate social justice, political activism, and institutional change.
• Heavy Reliance on Christian Radicalism
  Some critics may argue that Eagleton’s call for a more radical, politicized version of Christianity is overly idealistic and may not resonate with the practical realities of contemporary faith communities.
• Tendency to Romanticize Radicalism
  Eagleton’s preference for political radicalism over the more gradual, reformist tendencies of liberalism might be criticized for romanticizing revolutionary change without fully accounting for the complexities and risks involved.
• Overgeneralization of Liberalism’s Limitations
  Eagleton’s blanket critique of liberalism as being disconnected from real social change might overlook the fact that liberal values have played a significant role in progressive reforms and political movements throughout history.

Representative Quotations from “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Limits of Liberalism” by Terry Eagleton

1. Eagleton, Terry. “The Limits of Liberalism.” New Blackfriars, vol. 52, no. 613, 1971, pp. 353-357. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.1971.tb06692.x.
2. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869.
3. Arnold, Matthew. Culture and Anarchy. Smith, Elder & Co., 1869.
4. Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society. Rinehart, 1955.
5. Leavis, F. R. The Great Tradition: George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad. Chatto & Windus, 1948.
6. Forster, E. M. Two Cheers for Democracy. Edward Arnold & Co., 1951.

Introduction: “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

“The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton, first appeared in 1983 in the New Literary History journal, has been instrumental in shaping the landscape of literary theory. His exploration of the role of criticism in society and its relationship to power has had a profound impact on scholars and students alike. The book’s second edition, reprinted by Verso in 1984, solidified its status as a foundational text in literary studies.

Summary of “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

9. Criticism’s Future:

• Eagleton envisions a future where criticism plays a central role in fostering creative activity by developing a rich intellectual atmosphere. While criticism itself may not offer the same fulfillment as creative work, it lays the foundation for future generations of artists and thinkers.
• Reference: Criticism prepares the groundwork for a “promised land” of creative activity, even if the critic does not directly participate in it (p. 49).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

1. Overemphasis on Ideas: Critics argue that Eagleton’s focus on ideas and intellectual atmosphere is excessive, neglecting the importance of other factors such as social, cultural, and historical contexts in shaping literary production.
2. Underestimation of Creative Intuition: Some contend that Eagleton downplays the role of intuition and creative genius in literary creation. They argue that great works of art often emerge from subconscious impulses rather than conscious intellectual effort.
3. Historical Specificity: Critics have questioned the generalizability of Eagleton’s claims. They argue that his observations about the relationship between criticism and creativity may not hold true in all historical and cultural contexts.
4. Limited Definition of Criticism: Eagleton’s definition of criticism as “the free play of the mind on all subjects” has been criticized as overly narrow. Some argue that criticism can also involve other forms of engagement, such as interpretation, evaluation, and social commentary.
5. Neglect of Power Dynamics: Critics have suggested that Eagleton’s focus on ideas and intellectual atmosphere overlooks the power dynamics that shape literary production and reception. They argue that factors such as class, race, and gender can significantly influence the production and consumption of literature.
6. Overemphasis on Western Canon: Some critics have accused Eagleton of privileging Western literature and Western intellectual traditions. They argue that his analysis does not adequately account for the diverse literary traditions and critical practices found around the world.

Representative Quotations from “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Function of Criticism” by Terry Eagleton

1. Arnold, Matthew. The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. Cambridge University Press, 2005. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802072.006.
2. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
   https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/literary-theory
3. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press, 1989.
   https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262581080/the-structural-transformation-of-the-public-sphere/
4. Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. Methuen, 1980.
   https://www.routledge.com/Critical-Practice/Belsey/p/book/9780415329266
5. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society, 1780-1950. Columbia University Press, 1983.
   https://cup.columbia.edu/book/culture-and-society/9780231057011
6. Said, Edward W. The World, the Text, and the Critic. Harvard University Press, 1983.
   https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674961876
7. 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/

Introduction: “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

“The End of English” by Terry Eagleton, first appeared in 1986 in the Journal of Literary Studies, is considered a pivotal moment in the evolution of literary theory, marking a shift away from traditional approaches and embracing a more politically conscious and interdisciplinary perspective. Eagleton’s essay challenges the notion of English literature as a unified and timeless body of work, instead arguing that it is a socially constructed discourse shaped by historical, political, and economic forces. This groundbreaking insight has had a profound impact on the field of literary studies, inspiring scholars to examine literature within broader cultural and ideological contexts.

Summary of “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

• Colonial Modernism as a Literary Revolt
  Eagleton explores how Irish and American writers like James Joyce and T.S. Eliot used their outsider status to challenge and transform English literary traditions. These writers, free from the emotional ties to England, “objectify and appropriate” its traditions to their own ends, positioning themselves both “inside and outside” the dominant discourse. This allowed for a “profoundly dialogical” form of modernism, where peripheral figures like Joyce and Synge exploited English conventions while subtly mocking them. As Eagleton notes, modernist writers “revealingly inhabit English culture” but maintain a critical distance from it.
• English Literary Tradition as Imperialist and Nationalist
  The Victorian era’s English literature reflected the anxieties of the imperial middle class, attempting to establish a unified national identity. However, this identity was challenged by three interrelated events: World War I, modernism, and shifts in capitalist production. Eagleton argues that modern English literature “was violently assailed” by these global forces, creating a tension between national cultural formations and a rising internationalism. This led to English literary criticism adopting a regressive stance, turning back toward an “imaginary past” rather than engaging with the radical modernist movement.
• Modernism vs. Englishness
  Eagleton discusses how modernism, rooted in cosmopolitanism and transgression, collided with English nationalism. He draws a distinction between modernism’s borderless, international vision and the insular, reactionary nature of the English literary establishment, represented by figures like F.R. Leavis. The struggle of modernism to find acceptance in England is explained by the nation’s “resistance to subversive cultural forms” and its focus on maintaining national identity through literary realism and liberal empiricism. This resulted in modernism being seen as a foreign aberration and pushed to the margins of English culture.
• The Decline of Empire and the Collapse of “Englishness”
  Eagleton posits that English literature’s global significance was buttressed by the reach of the British Empire, which allowed the English language to “subsume all regional particularities” and position itself as a universal medium. However, with the decline of empire, English literature began to lose its global guarantee. Eagleton refers to this as the “pathetic farce” of Commonwealth Literature, marking the diminishing global relevance of English literature. The “loss of empire” marked a significant blow to the cultural ideology of Englishness.
• Postmodernism and the Erosion of Liberal Humanism
  Eagleton highlights how postmodernism has further threatened the ideology of “Englishness.” He identifies the audio-visual dominance of contemporary culture as symptomatic of this threat, noting that while postmodernism deconstructs traditional literary forms, it also exposes the “increasing irrelevance” of English literary discourse. Eagleton notes the irony that postmodern theories of cultural relativism and intertextuality have arisen at a time when Englishness is “culturally speaking, pretty much like North America,” stripped of its unique identity and authenticity.
• Theory as the New Battleground
  In the absence of a vibrant national literature, Eagleton argues that critical theory has become the new space for contesting cultural and political ideas. He draws a parallel between the earlier struggles of modernism and contemporary theory, suggesting that the debates over “high modernism” are being re-enacted within literary criticism today. The rise of theory represents a shift away from traditional Englishness and towards a more international, politically charged discourse.

Quotations:

1. “It is the colonised and dispossessed who shall inherit the literary earth.”
2. “English literature was violently assailed by three phenomena: the Great War, the explosion of modernism, and the mutation of the capitalist mode of production.”
3. “Empire was England’s secret weapon against a promiscuous modernism.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

1. Overemphasis on Political Ideology:Critics argue that Eagleton focuses too heavily on the political and ideological implications of literature, often overshadowing aesthetic and literary qualities. This Marxist approach reduces literature to merely a tool for class struggle and imperialist critique, ignoring the artistic innovations and individual expressions in the works he critiques.
2. Reductionist View of English Literature: Eagleton’s argument that English literature is primarily a product of Victorian imperialism and bourgeois ideology is seen as reductionist by some scholars. They claim that this perspective overlooks the diversity of English literary traditions, which include dissenting voices and works critical of empire and nationalism.
3. Limited Engagement with Postcolonial Voices: While Eagleton discusses postcolonialism and the subversion of the English literary tradition, some critics suggest that he doesn’t fully engage with postcolonial writers from non-Western regions. His focus remains on Irish, American, and European modernists, neglecting voices from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.
4. Neglect of Feminist Perspectives: Eagleton’s critique largely overlooks feminist perspectives in literature, failing to engage with how gender intersects with imperialism and modernism. Scholars argue that his analysis of works like Mrs. Dalloway underplays the role of gender in shaping narratives of identity and alienation within English literature.
5. Postmodernism Critique Oversimplified: Some critics claim that Eagleton’s dismissal of postmodernism as a threat to “Englishness” lacks nuance. They argue that postmodernism is more than just a critique of national identity; it offers valuable insights into fragmentation, plurality, and the complexities of cultural production in a globalized world.
6. Binary Between National and Cosmopolitan Literature: Eagleton establishes a rigid binary between English national literature and modernist cosmopolitanism. Critics argue that this dichotomy oversimplifies the relationship between local and global influences in literature, failing to recognize how even English writers were shaped by cosmopolitan movements and global exchanges.
7. Nostalgic for Marxist Criticism: Some critics view Eagleton’s critique as overly nostalgic for the Marxist critical tradition, particularly his longing for the kind of politically engaged criticism associated with movements like Scrutiny. This focus on a specific type of Marxist literary criticism is seen as outdated in a more pluralistic academic environment.

Representative Quotations from “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The End of English” by Terry Eagleton

1. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
2. ___ After Theory. Basic Books, 2004.
3. ___ Culture and the Death of God. Yale University Press, 2014.
4. ___ The Event of Literature. Yale University Press, 2012.
5. ___ The Function of Criticism. Verso, 2005.
6. ___ The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Blackwell, 1990.
7. ___ Why Marx Was Right. Yale University Press, 2011.
   
   

Introduction: “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

“Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton first appeared in 1998 in the journal Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies. This article holds significant importance in literature and literary theory due to its critical examination of the term “postcolonialism” itself. Eagleton challenges the assumptions and limitations of the concept, arguing that it often obscures rather than illuminates the complex realities of postcolonial experiences. His essay has sparked important debates and continues to influence discussions on postcolonial theory and its applications.  

Summary of “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

1. Critique of the Term “Postcolonialism”:
   • Eagleton opens by emphasizing how postcolonial theorists often start by questioning the very concept of postcolonialism. The term is viewed as oversimplified, falsely homogeneous, and problematic in addressing ongoing forms of colonization, both direct and indirect.
   • He asserts that postcolonialism is criticized for presenting a chronological issue where the colonial condition still persists. It “suggests a confident posteriority to a condition which still prevails in transformed guise” (Eagleton, 1998).
2. Distinction Between Postcolonialism and ‘Postcolonialism’:
   • Eagleton differentiates between two forms of postcolonialism: the political-economic reality of former colonies and the academic, theoretical construct labeled ‘postcolonialism’.
   • The latter has its roots in Western intellectual history and operates within the scope of modern theoretical concepts. “‘Postcolonialism’ is a way of analysing a true state of affairs in terms of certain currently rather modish western theoretical concepts” (Eagleton, 1998).
3. Hostility Toward Essentialism:
   • A major aspect of ‘postcolonialism’ is its hostility to essentialism, which includes the rejection of a universal human nature. Postcolonialists reject liberal humanist ideals that generalize human experiences, preferring to focus on cultural differences.
   • Eagleton challenges this approach by pointing out its inherent contradictions, such as replacing one form of essentialism with another when cultural difference is emphasized over universal humanity.
4. Criticism of Key ‘Postcolonial’ Concepts:
   • Concepts such as hybridity, non-exclusivity, and openness to the Other are integral to ‘postcolonialism’. However, Eagleton argues that such ideals can be hypocritical because they implicitly assume the value of a common humanity, a notion they outwardly reject.
   • Furthermore, Eagleton notes that not all forms of hybridity or difference are positive, citing examples such as exclusionary nationalist movements (Mussolini vs. Mozambique).
5. Rejection of Totalities:
   • Eagleton critiques postcolonial theorists for their rejection of systematic thinking and totalities. He points out that, in the real world, social and economic systems are interconnected and can have widespread consequences (e.g., a crisis in Asia affecting the West).
   • He criticizes postcolonialism for ignoring this reality, stating that the dismissal of totalities is a weakness in the face of global economic and political interconnectedness.
6. Suppression of Class Struggle:
   • Eagleton accuses ‘postcolonialism’ of sidelining class struggle in favor of cultural identity politics. He notes that postcolonial discourse has played a role in displacing socialist ideas and class-based political movements.
   • The focus on cultural identity, he argues, has emerged partly due to the difficulty of addressing more significant political conflicts in the West.
7. Culturalism and Political Ethic:
   • Eagleton views ‘postcolonialism’ as a form of culturalism that inflates the importance of cultural factors in global politics. He critiques the tendency to focus on identity and marginality rather than on economic issues such as trade agreements and military alliances.
   • He suggests that the acknowledgment of cultural difference, while necessary, should not overshadow the broader ethical imperative of human solidarity and reciprocity.
8. Conclusion – The Conflict Between Postcolonialism and ‘Postcolonialism’:
   • Eagleton concludes by calling for a conflict between postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism’, arguing that while openness, dialogue, and hybridization are important, ‘postcolonialism’—as the theoretical construct—should ultimately “lose out.”
   • He emphasizes that solidarity and coherence in political action are necessary for addressing real-world inequalities, implying that the academic focus on cultural hybridity is insufficient.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

Contribution of “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critiques the Term “Postcolonialism”:
  • It oversimplifies diverse situations (Bullet point 1).
  • It suggests a false sense of “post” – colonialism still exists in new forms (Bullet point 2).
  • It focuses on trendy Western theories instead of the realities of postcolonial societies (Bullet point 3).
• Distinguishes Between “Postcolonialism” and “‘Postcolonialism'”:
  • “Postcolonialism” refers to the actual state of former colonies (exploitation by new means) (Bullet point 1).
  • “‘Postcolonialism'” refers to a specific theoretical approach with limitations (Bullet point 3).
• Highlights Issues with “‘Postcolonialist'” Theory:
  • Overemphasis on cultural factors and identity over economic realities (Bullet points 4 & 5).
  • Disdain for class struggle as a concept (Bullet point 6).
  • Neglect of global power structures like the IMF (Bullet point 5).
  • Preference for celebrating difference over human solidarity (Bullet point 5).

Overall Argument:

Eagleton argues that “‘postcolonialism'” theory, while well-intentioned, suffers from limitations. It prioritizes trendy Western ideas and cultural factors over the harsh realities of ongoing economic exploitation faced by former colonies. He suggests a more nuanced approach that acknowledges both cultural complexities and the importance of class struggle and global economic structures.

Examples of Critiques Through “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

Criticism Against “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

1. Oversimplification of Postcolonialism:
   • Critics argue that Eagleton oversimplifies the vast and complex field of postcolonial theory by reducing it to a binary between postcolonial reality and ‘postcolonial’ theoretical abstraction.
2. Dismissal of Cultural Identity Politics:
   • Eagleton’s critique of postcolonialism as a form of “culturalism” is seen as dismissive of the significance of cultural identity in postcolonial struggles. Critics contend that he undermines the importance of recognizing marginalized identities and their fight against cultural hegemony.
3. Excessive Focus on Class Struggle:
   • Eagleton’s emphasis on class struggle as the primary lens for analyzing postcolonial societies is criticized for being overly Marxist, neglecting the specificities of race, ethnicity, and culture, which are central to postcolonial analysis.
4. Inadequate Engagement with Postcolonial Theorists:
   • Some critics suggest that Eagleton does not engage deeply enough with key postcolonial theorists like Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, or Homi Bhabha, whose works are foundational in shaping the field of postcolonial studies.
5. Undervaluation of Hybridity and Difference:
   • Eagleton’s skepticism toward concepts like hybridity, multiplicity, and transgressiveness is seen by some as reactionary. Postcolonial theorists argue that these ideas are crucial for understanding the fluid, dynamic identities and conditions of postcolonial societies.
6. Neglect of Global Economic and Political Systems:
   • Although Eagleton criticizes ‘postcolonialism’ for focusing on cultural factors, some critics point out that his essay itself lacks substantive analysis of the global economic and political systems that sustain neocolonialism.
7. Elitism and Overly Theoretical Approach:
   • Eagleton’s language and critique are sometimes viewed as elitist, catering more to an academic audience and lacking practical relevance for real-world postcolonial struggles and movements.
8. Binary Opposition Between Postcolonialism and ‘Postcolonialism’:
   • Critics argue that the binary opposition between postcolonialism (as reality) and ‘postcolonialism’ (as theory) in Eagleton’s essay is artificial, as both aspects are interrelated and influence each other.
9. Minimization of the Role of Cultural Studies:
   • Eagleton’s critique downplays the role of cultural studies in postcolonialism, which has been instrumental in exploring how colonial power is exercised not just politically and economically but also through culture, media, and representation.

Representative Quotations from “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism'” by Terry Eagleton

1. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. Routledge, 1989.
   https://www.routledge.com/The-Empire-Writes-Back-Theory-and-Practice-in-Post-Colonial-Literatures/Ashcroft-Griffiths-Tiffin/p/book/9780415280204
2. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.
   https://www.routledge.com/The-Location-of-Culture/Bhabha/p/book/9780415336390
3. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.
   https://archive.org/details/orientalism00said
4. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.
   https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674177642
5. Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge, 1998.
   https://www.routledge.com/ColonialismPostcolonialism/Loomba/p/book/9780415350648
6. Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
   https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Postcolonialism%3A+An+Historical+Introduction-p-9780631200693
7. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1963.
   https://archive.org/details/wretchedofearth00fanorich
8. “Postcolonial Studies @ Emory.” Emory University.
   http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/
9. “Postcolonial Web.” National University of Singapore.
   http://www.postcolonialweb.org/
10. Huggan, Graham. The Postcolonial Exotic: Marketing the Margins. Routledge, 2001.
    https://www.routledge.com/The-Postcolonial-Exotic-Marketing-the-Margins/Huggan/p/book/9780415207270

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.