“Decentering God” by Terry Eagleton: Summary and Critique

Christian-Marxist Dialogue and Humanism

• Christian and Marxist common ground in humanism: In the past, Christian-Marxist dialogue found a shared focus on humanistic values. Eagleton highlights this connection: “Whatever the divergences between the two camps, they were at least united by their profoundly humanistic dimension.”
• Humanism now criticized by Marxism: Marxism, however, has shifted its stance, moving away from humanism as seen in Louis Althusser’s declaration: “Marxism is not a Humanism.” This indicates Marxism’s growing rejection of humanism as a bourgeois ideology.

Decentering the Human Subject

• Human subject dethroned: Eagleton discusses how European Marxism and structuralism have moved to dethrone the human subject. The bourgeois idea of “Man” as the center of history is rejected: “It is history… which ‘speaks’ man, which constitutes the human subject.”
• Focus on structures and laws over individuals: Instead of centering on individual humans or collective subjects, Marxism focuses on social structures and discourses: “The study of history is the science of these rule-bound discourses… its aim is to disengage those laws… situated on a terrain quite other than ‘human experience’.”

God and the Fetish of Central Meaning

• Atheistic critique of central meaning: Eagleton points out that atheistic Marxism criticizes the idea of a central essence or ultimate meaning (such as God) as a mystifying fetish. As he notes, “Christian theology and atheistic humanism seem to share a belief in some ultimate essence or origin of meaning… but it is precisely this trust in some single enshrined essence of meaning which atheistic Marxism attacks as a fetish.”
• Derrida and decentering authority: Jacques Derrida and other Marxist semioticians argue that authority figures like God or monarchs act as centralizing fetishes that suppress pluralistic meanings: “God, the Father, the monarch, gold, the phallus… protect us from the terror of being liberated into the unfounded, decentred process of our history.”

Milton and the Tragic Absence of God

• Milton’s portrayal of God’s withdrawal: Eagleton draws on Milton’s Paradise Lost to explore how God’s withdrawal from history leads to a loss of meaning, particularly for the English Protestant bourgeoisie. He describes this withdrawal as both a source of value and a threat: “God seems to have withdrawn his presence from history, abandoning the revolutionary venture of his chosen people.”
• Satan as a failed revolutionary figure: Satan’s attempt to dethrone God in Paradise Lost is described as a decentering gone wrong, where one repressive authority is merely replaced with another: “Satan tries to de-centre, dethrone the poem’s aloof, coldly bureaucratic God and falls to hell… setting up a substitute kingdom.”

Decentering of Both God and Man

• Christ’s decentering of the Father: Eagleton argues that, from a Christian perspective, Christ’s incarnation is a revolutionary decentering of the Father. However, Milton fails to recognize this because of his theological stance: “In Christ, the Father decentres himself among men… but Milton cannot understand this due to his Arianism.”
• Simultaneous decentering of Man: Eagleton claims that the decentering of God leads to the decentering of Man, aligning Christian thought with traditional Marxism: “The Christian stands… with the more traditional Marxist who decentres both [God and Man].”

Pluralistic Meaning in History and Faith

• Ceaseless decentering in history and faith: Eagleton concludes that, for Christian faith, the process of decentering in history is mirrored by the triune God, whose meaning is dispersed and pluralistic: “The ceaseless decentring and deconstructing of Man by the discourses that ‘live’ him is part of that deeper movement… which is, for Christian faith, the triune God.”

Marxist Theory

• Critique of Humanist Marxism: Eagleton critiques the humanistic interpretation of Marxism, focusing on structural and materialist interpretations.
  • “Marxism is not a Humanism.” – Aligns with Althusser’s rejection of humanist Marxism.
• Decentering the Human Subject: Eagleton argues that history is shaped by social structures, not individual human beings or collective subjects.
  • “It is history… which ‘speaks’ man, which constitutes the human subject.”
• Emphasis on Social Formations: Eagleton shifts the focus from human subjects to social formations as key players in history.
  • “The subjects of history are not ‘men’, not even ‘social classes’, but… social formations.”

Structuralism

• Focus on Structures Over Individuals: Eagleton applies structuralist principles by emphasizing that human beings are products of larger societal structures.
  • “The study of history is the science of these rule-bound discourses… its aim is to disengage those laws.”
• Human Experience Subordinated to Structures: Eagleton argues that societal structures shape history rather than individual human experience.
  • “Like the unconscious, [history] has its reasons of which ‘living individuals’ know nothing.”

Poststructuralism

• Decentering and Plurality of Meaning: Reflecting poststructuralist ideas, Eagleton emphasizes the ceaseless decentering of meaning, rejecting any fixed or centralized authority.
  • “The ceaseless decentring and deconstructing of Man… is part of that deeper movement.”
• Critique of Centralized Authority: Eagleton critiques the concept of centralized meaning, such as God or Man, as oppressive and misleading.
  • “Atheistic Marxism attacks… some single enshrined essence of meaning… as a fetish.”
• Instability of Meaning: Aligning with Derrida’s deconstruction, Eagleton argues that meaning is fluid and always being remade, rejecting any notion of fixed truths.
  • “We are always already in the midst of meaning, traversed by the multiple codes which ‘speak‘ us.”

Overemphasis on Structuralism

• Neglect of Human Agency: Critics may argue that Eagleton’s focus on social structures over individual agency dismisses the role of human experience in shaping history.
  • By asserting “history… constitutes the human subject,” Eagleton downplays individual contributions, which could be seen as reductive.

Excessive Reliance on Marxist Framework

• Reduction of Complex Religious Thought to Materialism: Eagleton’s Marxist analysis might oversimplify religious belief systems, reducing them to mere ideological constructs without engaging with their spiritual or metaphysical dimensions.
  • The claim that “the centrality of Man is merely a displacement of the supremacy of God” may be seen as an overly simplistic interpretation of religious humanism.

Dismissal of Humanism

• Critique of Humanism as Dated: Some may argue that Eagleton’s rejection of humanism is unnecessarily dismissive, ignoring how humanistic principles can coexist with more structural analyses.
  • Eagleton’s statement that “humanism… forestalls us from thinking through society as structure” overlooks the continuing relevance of human-centered perspectives.

Ambiguity in Deconstruction

• Potential for Theoretical Vagueness: Eagleton’s embrace of poststructuralist ideas, such as deconstruction, may lead to a lack of clarity or practical application, as meaning becomes constantly deferred and fluid.
  • The notion that “meaning is ceaselessly exterior to itself” could be criticized for creating interpretive instability, making it difficult to engage with concrete political or literary critique.

Underestimation of Theological Complexity

• Simplification of Christian Theology: Critics may argue that Eagleton simplifies complex theological debates, particularly regarding Milton and the decentering of God, without fully exploring the spiritual and philosophical nuances.
  • His critique of Milton’s Arianism, for example, may be seen as reductive: “Milton… incapable of recognising the other side of that truth.”