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
- 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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
| Term/Concept | Explanation | Quotation/Reference |
| Moral Technology | A set of practices and techniques in literature aimed at shaping and instilling specific moral values and behaviors in individuals. | “A moral technology consists of a particular set of techniques and practices for the instilling of specific kinds of value, discipline, behaviour…” (p. 97) |
| Subjectivity | The way human subjects are produced and shaped by social institutions like literature, forming an individual’s internal self. | “The production of subjects/subjectivities is just as historically relative and changing as the production of economic goods.” (p. 96) |
| Depoliticized Subjectivity | A form of subjectivity created by literature that appears to be autonomous but is actually bound to societal control mechanisms. | “Subjectivity is radically depoliticized…this form of subjectivity is the space of our freedom and creativity.” (p. 99) |
| Liberal Humanism | A literary ideology that values individual growth, creativity, and personal experience, but which conceals its support for the status quo. | “Liberal humanism works as a literary ideology…believing as they do that it is the one enclave of freedom.” (p. 100) |
| Literary Formalism | The emphasis on the aesthetic and emotional response to literature, rather than its specific moral or political content. | “Literature is that process in which the quality of the response is more significant than the quality of the object.” (p. 99) |
| Imaginative Sympathy | A concept in liberal humanism that stresses empathetic understanding of others’ experiences, often abstracted from political context. | “‘Imaginative sympathy’ in itself is nothing…Only when imbued with a specific social and historical content can we know what we are arguing about.” (p. 104) |
| Kantian Morality | Refers to Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, which focuses on formal moral principles without specifying particular ethical content. | “Kant’s moral philosophy…treat others as ends not means, universalise your actions…which could be given a whole number of specific historical contents.” (p. 98) |
| Cultural Theory | Contemporary theoretical approaches to analyzing literature, focusing on how culture and power shape the production and reception of texts. | “Modern critical ideas translated into terms intelligible to children and televisually attractive.” (p. 95) |
| Creative Transformation | The idea that genuine change in society comes not from gradual growth but from conflict and radical breaks with the status quo. | “There is one major way in which men and women in our society have over the years experienced creative transformation…at the end of a policeman’s truncheon.” (p. 104) |
Contribution of “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton to Literary Theory/Theories
| Theory | Contribution by Eagleton | Quotation/Reference |
| Marxist Literary Criticism | Eagleton argues that literature is a form of “moral technology” that shapes subjectivities according to the needs of the dominant social order. He critiques how liberal humanism conceals power relations in literature. | “What these techniques at once map and produce…are certain forms of value and response” (p. 97); “Liberal humanism… masks its ideological role by promoting literature as a form of personal growth and creativity” (p. 100). |
| Ideology Critique | Eagleton’s essay analyzes how literature functions ideologically to produce depoliticized subjects. He critiques the illusion of literary subjectivity being “free” when it is, in fact, bound to capitalist ideology. | “We are bound as firmly as we are precisely because we do not seem to be bound at all” (p. 99); “This is what is meant by saying that in a liberal capitalist society we are now ‘free.'” (p. 99). |
| Post-structuralism | The essay challenges the liberal humanist view of literature as a space for universal moral truths and emphasizes that subjectivity itself is socially constructed, contingent, and political. | “Subjectivity is radically depoliticized, and that is always to the advantage of the ruling order” (p. 99); “What it is to be a subject is to be constituted as a kind of free, autonomous, universal sensibility.” (p. 100). |
| Formalism (Critique of) | Eagleton critiques literary formalism, which values the aesthetic and emotional response over the political or moral content of literature. He argues that this formalism ultimately serves the interests of the ruling class. | “Literature is that process in which the quality of the response is more significant than the quality of the object… Literature is a formalism.” (p. 99). |
| Kantian Morality (Critique of) | Eagleton critiques the Kantian notion of morality as abstract and formal, arguing that it resonates in the depoliticized, contentless subjectivity fostered by literature in capitalist society. | “Kant’s moral philosophy…could be given a whole number of specific historical contents” (p. 98); “What Literature teaches is not so much this or that moral value; it teaches us rather to be moral.” (p. 99). |
| Critical Pedagogy | The essay highlights the political implications of teaching literature and critiques how literature education in schools shapes students’ subjectivities in ways that conform to the needs of capitalist society. | “We do not teach our children to revere water-sprites or regard authority as evil because these responses would be naturally disruptive of our particular social order.” (p. 98). |
| Cultural Studies | Eagleton emphasizes that literature is a cultural product that serves social and political functions, rather than an isolated aesthetic experience. This aligns with the focus of cultural studies on power and ideology. | “Literature is a technology… for mapping, measuring, assessing and certifying emotive and experiential aspects of subjectivity” (p. 97). |
| Post-Marxism | Eagleton’s arguments engage with the post-Marxist critique of culture, emphasizing the constructed nature of subjectivity and the ideological role of literature in reproducing capitalist values. | “The form of what counts as a ‘literary’ response…is in contradiction with the moral and political content at stake.” (p. 100). |
Key Contributions:
- 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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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
| Literary Work | Critique Through Eagleton’s Theories | Key Concepts from Eagleton |
| King Lear by William Shakespeare | Eagleton argues that although King Lear contains themes of solidarity with the oppressed, liberal humanist readings often fail to transform these moral insights into political action. The play is instead interpreted as fostering a personal emotional experience, depoliticizing its revolutionary potential. | “The form of what counts as a ‘literary’ response…is in contradiction with the moral and political content at stake.” (p. 100) |
| Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen | From an Eagletonian perspective, Pride and Prejudice can be seen as reinforcing bourgeois subjectivity by promoting values of social decorum, individual growth, and personal morality that align with capitalist ideology. The novel trains readers to value personal virtue over systemic change, thus depoliticizing the subject. | “We are bound as firmly as we are precisely because we do not seem to be bound at all.” (p. 99); “Liberal humanism guards and treasures this interior enclave…” (p. 100) |
| The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald | In Eagleton’s framework, The Great Gatsby may be critiqued as illustrating the moral emptiness of capitalist society. While the novel critiques the American Dream, it does so through a focus on personal failure and disillusionment, which leads to a depoliticized understanding of broader class conflict. | “What Literature teaches is not so much this or that moral value… It teaches us rather to be moral.” (p. 99); “The workings of the particular moral technology…” (p. 97) |
| Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë | Eagleton would critique Wuthering Heights as a novel that, while engaging in complex portrayals of passion and social conflict, ultimately reinforces traditional class and gender hierarchies through its emotional focus. The readers are trained to focus on personal emotional responses rather than critically engaging with the oppressive social structures within the novel. | “What is important is just the production of a specific form of subjectivity, about which we can say… that it is sensitive, creative, imaginative and so on.” (p. 99) |
Explanation of Critiques:
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Among the various modes of production in any society, one of the most central is the mode of production of human subjects.” (p. 96) | Eagleton establishes that societies produce subjects through institutions, including literature. This highlights how literature functions within the broader social system to shape individual identities and subjectivities. |
| “Literature is a moral technology.” (p. 97) | This summarizes Eagleton’s argument that literature is a tool used to instill specific moral values and behaviors, often serving the interests of social control and power structures. |
| “Subjectivity is radically depoliticized, and that is always to the advantage of the ruling order.” (p. 99) | Eagleton critiques how literature creates a form of subjectivity that appears autonomous but is actually depoliticized, serving the interests of the dominant class by disconnecting personal experiences from political contexts. |
| “Liberal humanism guards and treasures this interior enclave as the one defense against deforming external forces.” (p. 100) | This critique of liberal humanism suggests that it falsely portrays subjectivity as a free, internal space, while ignoring the broader social and political forces that shape individuals. |
| “We are bound as firmly as we are precisely because we do not seem to be bound at all.” (p. 99) | Eagleton highlights how capitalist ideology operates invisibly, creating an illusion of freedom while subtly binding individuals to the system of power and control. |
| “Literature is that process in which the quality of the response is more significant than the quality of the object.” (p. 99) | Eagleton critiques literary formalism for prioritizing the subjective response to a work over its actual content, which can depoliticize literature by focusing on personal emotions rather than its social implications. |
| “What literature teaches is not so much this or that moral value; it teaches us rather to be moral.” (p. 99) | Eagleton argues that literature does not promote specific moral values, but rather a general disposition of being moral, which he sees as problematic because it detaches morality from concrete social and political realities. |
| “The form of what counts as a ‘literary’ response… is in contradiction with the moral and political content at stake.” (p. 100) | This quotation underscores Eagleton’s critique of liberal humanism: while literature may contain radical content, the form in which it is taught or received often prevents readers from translating that into political or moral action. |
| “What it is to be a subject is to be constituted as a kind of free, autonomous, universal sensibility, indifferent to any particular moral or political contents.” (p. 100) | Eagleton critiques the liberal humanist notion of the subject as free and autonomous, arguing that this conception of subjectivity is abstract and disconnected from any real-world social or political issues. |
| “Language is power, conflict, and struggle – weapon as much as medium, poison as well as cure.” (p. 104) | Eagleton stresses the dual nature of language, viewing it not only as a tool for communication and creativity but also as an instrument of power and control within social and political struggles. |
Suggested Readings: “The Subject of Literature” by Terry Eagleton
- Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/literary-theory - Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Blackwell, 1990.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470694192 - 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 - Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 1971.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm - Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.
https://archive.org/details/marxismliteratur00will - Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Basic Books, 2010. https://archive.org/details/interpretationof0000freu