Introduction: “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
“Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton first appeared in 1981 in the Contemporary Literature journal. This essay is considered a significant contribution to the fields of literature and literary theory due to its exploration of the relationship between Marxist and Deconstructionist approaches. Eagleton’s analysis challenges the traditional boundaries between these two schools of thought, offering a nuanced perspective on their strengths and limitations. His work has been influential in shaping discussions about ideology, power, and language in literary studies.
Summary of “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
- Historical Context and Ideological Conflict:
- Eagleton frames the relationship between Marxism and deconstruction as an ideological conflict, where both approaches challenge traditional structures, but from different philosophical angles.
- Marxism, rooted in historical materialism, focuses on class struggle as the driving force of societal change, while deconstruction seeks to destabilize and critique fixed meanings, especially those entrenched in Western metaphysics.
- Critique of Deconstruction:
- Eagleton critiques deconstruction for its tendency to stay within textual and philosophical boundaries, often failing to engage with concrete historical and material realities, which are central to Marxist thought.
- He highlights the lack of engagement with class struggle in deconstruction and its avoidance of concrete political action, seeing it as a reflection of the political quietism in certain intellectual circles.
- “Inside” vs. “Outside” Debate:
- The “inside/outside” dichotomy is a significant theme in the article, where deconstruction focuses on dismantling binaries but fails to transcend the metaphysical framework.
- Marxism, Eagleton argues, resolves this problem not through intellectual gymnastics but by recognizing the working class’s historical role in both being inside capitalism and capable of overthrowing it.
- Deconstruction’s Reformist and Radical Dimensions:
- Deconstruction is described as being both reformist (in its modest critique of texts) and ultra-leftist (in its radical rejection of metaphysical certainties).
- Eagleton acknowledges deconstruction’s radical potential but criticizes it for failing to translate its critique into political action.
- Bourgeois Liberalism and Deconstruction:
- Eagleton draws parallels between deconstruction and the contradictions within bourgeois liberalism. He argues that deconstruction reflects the decline of bourgeois humanism, attempting to salvage freedom by dissolving the subject altogether.
- The critique focuses on how deconstruction’s radical textualism may ultimately reinforce bourgeois ideology by avoiding substantive engagement with material and historical conditions.
- Marxism’s Engagement with Ideology and Class:
- Eagleton contrasts Marxism’s materialist approach to ideology, which sees ideology as a reflection of class struggle, with deconstruction’s focus on metaphysics and textual analysis.
- He argues that Marxism’s historical understanding of class conflict provides a more robust framework for political change, as opposed to deconstruction’s nihilistic or self-referential tendencies.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
| Term/Concept | Explanation |
| Marxism | A social, political, and economic theory that focuses on class struggle, historical materialism, and the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism. |
| Deconstruction | A post-structuralist approach developed by Jacques Derrida, aimed at exposing internal contradictions in texts and destabilizing established meanings. |
| Ideology | A set of ideas that represent the interests of a particular class or group. In Marxism, ideology reflects and reinforces material and class relations. |
| Class Struggle | The central dynamic in Marxist theory, highlighting the conflict between different social classes, particularly the working class (proletariat) and the ruling class (bourgeoisie). |
| Inside/Outside Dichotomy | A philosophical opposition where entities or subjects are viewed as either part of or external to a system. In deconstruction, this binary is critiqued as unstable. |
| Transcendental Signifier | In Derrida’s terms, a concept or entity that claims to ground all meanings (e.g., God, truth). Deconstruction questions the possibility of such signifiers. |
| Semiosis | The process of producing meaning through signs. Eagleton discusses how deconstruction pushes the limits of semiosis, destabilizing fixed meanings. |
| Metaphysical Presence | The idea of an underlying reality or essence. Deconstruction challenges the idea of metaphysical presence, seeing it as a product of language. |
| Commodity Fetishism | A Marxist concept that describes how social relations under capitalism are obscured by the relationships between commodities and their perceived value. |
| Negative Dialectics | A term used by Theodor Adorno and referenced by Eagleton to describe a critical approach that rejects positive affirmations and instead emphasizes contradiction and negation. |
| Ultra-leftism | A Marxist term referring to radical political movements that reject reformist or gradualist approaches in favor of revolutionary action. Eagleton contrasts this with the reformist tendencies in deconstruction. |
| Textuality | The focus on the text as the primary object of analysis in deconstruction, where meaning is seen as fluid and indeterminate. |
| Historical Materialism | A Marxist methodology that views material conditions, such as economic and class relations, as the foundation of social and political life. |
| Bourgeois Liberalism | A political ideology based on individual freedoms, private property, and market economy, critiqued by Eagleton for its contradictions and affinity with deconstruction. |
| Metaphysical Closure | A concept in deconstruction where metaphysical structures are seen as limiting and final, but deconstruction aims to dismantle these closures. |
| Reformism | A political approach that seeks to achieve change through gradual and moderate reforms rather than revolutionary action. Eagleton critiques deconstruction as a form of textual reformism. |
| Differance | Derrida’s concept describing how meaning is always deferred and differentiated through language, never fully present or fixed. |
Contribution of “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Marxist Theory:
- Class Struggle and Ideology: Eagleton emphasizes the importance of class struggle and ideology in understanding literature. He argues that literature is not merely a reflection of reality but a product of specific historical and social conditions. For instance, he states, “The working class is the agent of historical revolution not because of its potential ‘consciousness’ (LukAcs), but because of that location within the capitalist mode of production ironically assigned to it by capitalism itself” (Eagleton, 1981, p. 479).
- Economic Determinism: While acknowledging the limitations of economic determinism, Eagleton suggests that it is crucial to consider the material conditions that shape literary production. He criticizes Deconstruction for its tendency to ignore the economic and social factors underlying textual production.
- Cultural Materialism: Eagleton’s essay can be seen as a precursor to Cultural Materialism, a theory that emphasizes the relationship between literature and material reality. He argues that literature is not just a reflection of ideology but actively contributes to shaping it.
2. Deconstruction:
- Subversion of Metaphysical Closure: Eagleton appreciates Deconstruction’s ability to subvert traditional metaphysical oppositions and challenge the dominant ways of understanding language and literature. He quotes Derrida, “Something always escapes, but it has to pay a heavy toll” (Eagleton, 1981, p. 485).
- Focus on Textual Instability: Eagleton highlights Deconstruction’s focus on the instability and indeterminacy of texts, which allows for a deeper exploration of their underlying meanings. He suggests that Deconstruction’s “hair-raising radicalism” can be valuable in challenging established interpretations.
- Critique of Metaphysical Discourse: Eagleton uses Deconstruction to critique the metaphysical foundations of Western thought. He argues that by exposing the contradictions and limitations of metaphysical discourse, Deconstruction can help liberate us from its constraints.
3. New Historicism:
- Interdisciplinary Approach: Eagleton’s essay foreshadows the interdisciplinary approach of New Historicism, which emphasizes the relationship between literature and its historical and cultural context. By analyzing texts within their specific historical and social contexts, Eagleton provides a more nuanced understanding of their significance.
- Attention to Power and Ideology: Eagleton’s focus on power and ideology aligns with New Historicism’s interest in exploring how literature is implicated in power relations. He argues that texts are not neutral but reflect and contribute to the dominant ideologies of their time.
Examples of Critiques Through “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
| Literary Work | Marxist Critique | Deconstructionist Critique |
| Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad | – Marxism would focus on the depiction of imperialism as a function of capitalist exploitation. – It critiques the portrayal of African natives as dehumanized, seeing this as reinforcing colonial power structures. | – Deconstruction would examine the ambivalence in Conrad’s language, particularly the unstable representation of “civilization” vs. “savagery.” – The text undermines its own binary opposition between European superiority and African “otherness.” |
| Hamlet by William Shakespeare | – A Marxist analysis would explore the feudal society depicted in Hamlet and the class tensions between monarchy and other classes. – The character of Hamlet could be viewed as representing the alienation of the aristocracy in a decaying feudal system. | – A deconstructive reading would focus on the undecidability of Hamlet’s actions and the play’s oscillation between action and inaction. – Deconstruction would explore how language in the play dismantles clear notions of revenge, justice, and moral certainty. |
| Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen | – A Marxist critique would look at the novel’s representation of class and economic marriage as reinforcing social stratification. – The limited agency of women, who are forced into marriages for financial security, is viewed as a critique of patriarchal capitalism. | – Deconstruction would interrogate the text’s treatment of language and social codes, showing how the pursuit of marriage reveals contradictions in class and gender roles. – The social norms of “decency” and “propriety” are shown to be fluid and constantly deferred in meaning. |
| The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot | – Marxism would analyze the poem’s depiction of a fragmented, disillusioned post-World War I society as reflective of the collapse of capitalism and the alienation of modern life. – The emphasis on despair and the absence of social unity reflects the failure of bourgeois society to offer meaning. | – A deconstructive reading would focus on the text’s fragmentation, lack of clear narrative structure, and multiplicity of voices, showing the absence of a unified meaning or “truth.” – The instability of meaning in The Waste Land is emphasized through its intertextuality and allusions, which undermine fixed interpretations. |
Criticism Against “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
1. Oversimplification of Marxism:
- Reductionism: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s portrayal of Marxism is overly simplistic and reductionist, ignoring the complexities and nuances of Marxist thought. They contend that his focus on economic determinism and class struggle overlooks other important aspects of Marxist theory, such as the role of culture, ideology, and subjectivity.
- Neglect of Later Marxist Developments: Eagleton’s essay primarily focuses on earlier Marxist thinkers and may not adequately address more recent developments in Marxist theory, such as Althusserian structuralism and Gramscian cultural hegemony.
2. Underestimation of Deconstruction:
- Overemphasis on Ideology: Critics argue that Eagleton’s emphasis on ideology underestimates the radical potential of Deconstruction. They contend that Deconstruction’s focus on textual instability and the subversion of metaphysical oppositions can challenge dominant power structures in ways that Marxist theory may not fully capture.
- Neglect of Deconstruction’s Ethical Dimensions: Eagleton’s analysis may overlook the ethical dimensions of Deconstruction, such as its critique of logocentrism and its emphasis on the importance of difference and plurality.
3. Methodological Limitations:
- Lack of Specificity: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis is too general and lacks the specificity required for a rigorous examination of individual texts. They contend that his approach can be overly abstract and fail to provide concrete insights into literary works.
- Overreliance on Metaphysical Oppositions: While Eagleton criticizes metaphysical oppositions, his own analysis may still be influenced by such binary thinking. Critics argue that a more nuanced understanding of literature requires going beyond these oppositions.
4. Political Implications:
- Conservative Bias: Some critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis has conservative political implications. By emphasizing the limitations of Deconstruction and advocating for a return to Marxist principles, Eagleton may be inadvertently reinforcing dominant power structures.
- Neglect of Alternative Political Perspectives: Critics argue that Eagleton’s analysis overlooks alternative political perspectives, such as feminism, postcolonialism, and queer theory, which may offer different approaches to understanding literature and social change.
Representative Quotations from “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The working class is the agent of historical revolution not because of its potential ‘consciousness’… but because of that location within the capitalist mode of production.” | Eagleton emphasizes the Marxist materialist position that the working class’s role in revolution stems from its material position within capitalism. |
| “Deconstruction is in one sense an ideology of left-reformism.” | Eagleton critiques deconstruction for focusing on internal critique of texts without connecting this critique to material conditions or action. |
| “The opposition ‘inside/outside’ was deconstructed a few years back.” | Eagleton points out that deconstruction aims to dismantle oppositions like inside and outside, questioning whether this opposition still holds meaning. |
| “Deconstruction is the death drive at the level of theory.” | Eagleton likens deconstruction to Freud’s “death drive,” as it seeks to destroy fixed meaning, yet avoids reconstructing any stable alternatives. |
| “The revolutionary working class is able to deconstruct the inside/outside opposition not through theory but through historical praxis.” | This highlights the Marxist view that real change occurs not through intellectual critique but through class struggle and material revolution. |
| “Deconstruction practices a mode of self-destruction which leaves it as invulnerable as an empty page.” | Eagleton critiques deconstruction’s endless self-critique, comparing it to a blank slate immune from real-world consequences. |
| “Marxism… understands ultra-leftism and social democracy as antithetical responses to the absence of a revolutionary movement.” | This reflects Marxism’s ability to contextualize political movements like social democracy and ultra-leftism as responses to a lack of revolutionary momentum. |
| “Deconstruction is as disorienting in North America as it was for Mrs. Moore in India.” | Eagleton compares the effects of deconstruction on American thought to Mrs. Moore’s existential confusion in Forster’s A Passage to India. |
| “Deconstruction, as a particular set of textual procedures, can operate as a radical force.” | Eagleton acknowledges deconstruction’s potential for radical critique but critiques its inability to engage with material history. |
| “What is at question is the appropriation of such insights and procedures in ways which objectively legitimate bourgeois hegemony.” | Eagleton warns that deconstruction’s radical insights risk being co-opted by academia and bourgeois institutions without addressing real-world power dynamics. |
Suggested Readings: “Marxism and Deconstruction” by Terry Eagleton
- Eagleton, Terry. “Marxism and Deconstruction.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 22, no. 4, 1981, pp. 477–88. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1207879. Accessed 20 Sept. 2024.
- Holm, Cameron L., and Janis Butler Holm. College English, vol. 40, no. 4, 1978, pp. 450–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/376267. Accessed 20 Sept. 2024.
- Harvey, J. R. “Criticism, Ideology, Raymond Williams and Terry Eagleton.” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, 1978, pp. 56–65. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42966503. Accessed 20 Sept. 2024.
- Thampi, Mohan. Social Scientist, vol. 6, no. 12, 1978, pp. 85–87. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3516678. Accessed 20 Sept. 2024.
- Larrissy, Edward. “Terry Eagleton, Postmodernism and Ireland.” Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism, no. 9, 2011, pp. 25–40. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26920290. Accessed 20 Sept. 2024.