Meanwhile, at Philosophy Now:
In 1983, Terry Eagleton (...) argued in his highly popular and influential Literary Theory: An Introduction, that no work of literature and no literary theory are genuinely apolitical. He wrote that what counts as literature and good taste “only serves the ruling power-interests of society at large.”
...In the same book, Eagleton also warned his readers about what he thinks are ahistorical and ideologically suspicious literary theories such as New Criticism, formalism, (post-)structuralism, psychoanalysis and deconstruction. He wrote that “the great majority of the [above] literary theories outlined in this book have strengthened rather than challenged the assumptions of the power-system.”
...
Eagleton urged his readers to study literature as a cultural phenomenon among other cultural phenomena.
Sure, but I fail to see how Eagleton manages to get away from post-colonialism. I mean, aren't cultural studies an offshoot of poststructuralism in the first place? How is his "cultural theory" any different from Edward Said anti-orientalism? Perhaps Eagleton is disappointed in the failure of his book because to introduce a method (praxis) is to also introduce a theory (however invisible)
Comments
Eagleton isn't so much opposed to Derrida as the Yale critics' application of Derrida. They depoliticize him, turn him into a kind of neo-new-criticism. I think that's pretty unarguable.
He thinks postcolonialism overemphasizes culture - forgetting that colonialism is still largely a matter of economic and political injustice.
I think the same goes for the way cultural studies turned out. He revised the book in the 90s and expressed some disappointment in the way cultural studies turned into just another academic fad, again emphasizing culture over political action.
He is under no illusion that he doesn't have a theory. In the end he says that his very critique of the other schools make up a kind of Marxist theory.
We had to read this book in college and I still like it a lot, alhtough I disagree with him about some things. It's hard to be an artist and agree whole-heartedly with his kind of Marxism.
Johannes
Eagleton isn't so much opposed to Derrida as the Yale critics' application of Derrida. They depoliticize him, turn him into a kind of neo-new-criticism. I think that's pretty unarguable.
He thinks postcolonialism overemphasizes culture - forgetting that colonialism is still largely a matter of economic and political injustice.
I think the same goes for the way cultural studies turned out. He revised the book in the 90s and expressed some disappointment in the way cultural studies turned into just another academic fad, again emphasizing culture over political action.
He is under no illusion that he doesn't have a theory. In the end he says that his very critique of the other schools make up a kind of Marxist theory.
We had to read this book in college and I still like it a lot, alhtough I disagree with him about some things. It's hard to be an artist and agree whole-heartedly with his kind of Marxism.
Johannes
Thanks for the insight, Johannes.