Sociology of Literature: Terry Eagleton’s Ideological Understanding of Literature
About the Author
Terry Eagleton, born in 1943 is a British literary critic and theorist, work teaches English literature at Lancaster University. Some of his popular works include ‘Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983)’, ‘The Illusions of Postmodernism (1996)’ and ‘After Theory (2003)’. Eagleton’s approach to understanding literary criticism is one determinedly rooted in the Marxist tradition, although he has been flexible in incorporating techniques and ideas from more recent means of thought as Lacanian analysis, deconstruction and structuralism, which is reflected in his work ‘Marxism and Literary Criticism (1976)’.
Introduction to Marxism
As we are all aware Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founding fathers of Marxism, are re-called for their economic and political works than their literary works. Eagleton focuses on Marxist theory for studying literature and its evolution. Marxists worship the dream of a classless society and believed in state ownership over private ownership.
Marxist criticism is concerned with the literature’s material & social character. It is significantly influenced by Marxist politics that is essentially a critique of capitalism. It studies literary works relationship with an economic, social and historical context. It examines the relation between the ideas and values expressed in a work of literature and the ideas and values prevalent in contemporary society. Marxism evaluates the relation of literature with class struggles and conflicts between social groups for economic and political power. It undertakes an ideological study of literature that examines literature as the direct expression of class interests. Such study is carried out in two ways-
a) By showing how certain ideas and values are structurally imposed through a literary work and
b) By showing the apparatus of publishing and distribution.
Eagleton’s Analysis
“Sociology of Literature”
This notion is considerably much prevalent in the west. Eagleton defines this process which deals with literary production, distribution and exchange in particular society. It also focus on the publication and production of books, writer’s status and the reader’s literacy. Sociology of literature is considered as an important component of Marxist criticism. It deals with explaining of a literary work more completely. It encourages critics to look beyond the text, and take a deeper look at the historical, economic and social conditions of when the text was written. This also includes the study of form, style and meaning of literary works.
“The originality of the criticism of Marxist ideology is not its approach to literature but in its understanding of the revolution in literature.” In this way, he points out the real goal of the Historical approach of the Marxism towards fulfillment of literary creations. Which means that in the context of Historical context literary creations, its forms, technique or its meaning should have more sensitivity and attention or to accept it as reproduction of History. In the context of bi-lateral relationship of History and literature, on the one side he stresses upon his stamps on the Historical age/dominance. On the other hand he perceives his historical conditions will outline the time/era. Further the writer perceives the History with ideologies matters. He propounds the basic concept of Marks & Angles that “Economic Powers constitute the frame work of the fundamental economic model.” Every age is a part of this or dependent upon this economic factor, Evolution of the same is not only dependent upon Art but also upon certain patterns of social awareness.
RELATION BETWEEN ‘BASE’ AND ‘SUPERSTRUCTURE’
Eagleton uses the Marxist metaphor — “Base and Superstructure” to start the discussion. Marx argues that productive force and social relation form the economic structure of a society. This economic structure was called “BASE”.
Superstructure emerges from this Base, which comprises of certain means of social consciousness including ethical value, aesthetic theory and religion. The ruling class often use superstructure for legitimizing its mode of economic production. Marxist critics call this ruling class strategy ideology. Ruling class establishes different favorable ideologies for establishing its power. Art and literature are considered a part of “Superstructure”. They are the product of complex relation between base and superstructure, as ideology of country is shaped and designed by the ruling class, who might have manipulated the details. This makes it essential to engage in the total social process of the text to completely understand literature.
Superstructure is not pure in nature and can be toyed with for beneficial results, as it highly relies on the economic base. An author’s social status is reflected in his/ her work, including his ideologies. This is where ideology works through literature and critic needs to discover it. Eagleton takes the example of “The Dunciad”, “Ulysses” and “King Lear”, for illustrating this point. He argues that it is not enough to interpret the symbols in these works to study their literary history and the footnotes about sociological facts related to them. It is important to study the complex relations between these works and the world they represent. As said by Georgy Plekhanov, “the social mentality of an age is conditioned by the age’s social relation”. Eagleton asserts the importance of Marxist study of literature. This must not restricted to socioeconomic and historical analysis but must also take into account the artistic/aesthetic aspects.
Eagleton also taking the example of “Nostromo”, interprets “Placido Gulf Scene” from a Marxist point of view. ‘Decoud’ and ‘Nostromo’ are shown isolated which is the symbol of pessimism in the mind of the author (it is an ideological pessimism). This is the world view of western bourgeois of whom Conrad was one. Authors writing in a particular time may be shaped by the ideology of their time and discuss or reflect it consciously or unconsciously in their work.
PROBLEM WITH ‘BASE’ AND ‘SUPERSTRUCTURE’
Marx clearly highlights that base and superstructure are not symmetrical in nature and therefore are unable to form equal relationship. In order to explain this issue Eagleton uses the literary example of “The Wasteland” (by T.S. Eliot). He briefly gives a Marxist interpretation of the poem. It may be argued that the poem is directly determined by ideological and economic factors. But this interpretation does not take into account the many levels that mediate between the text itself and capitalist economy. Eliot had very ambiguous relationship with English society as an aristocratic American writer. He was committed conservative traditionalist rather than a bourgeois commercialist and here Eliot does not use.
“Historical form/ relationship of a material /object is determined by a person who has to portray it. When a material transforms itself, then its portrayal also changes, breaks and transforms itself. Which means that a material is above its relationship.”
LITERATURE TO IDEOLOGY
Eagleton defines ideology as the way men live out their roles in class-society. Ideologies binds people assigning them to their social function through ideas, values and images that prevent them from obtaining the true knowledge of society. In this sense T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland” is ideological as it portrays man making sense, experience which are false and prevent people from true social knowledge. “The books are not only some meaningful creations but these are produced by the publishers for profit when these are sold in the market.”
Literature and ideology share a complex and indirect relation. Ernst Fischer in ‘Art against Ideology’, discusses how art doesn’t follow set rules of society, hence is not confined to particular ideologies. Eagleton mentions two extreme views for this relation –
1) All literature is nothing but an expression of ideology.
2) Literature transcends ideology and shows relations that ideology hides.
Terry rejects both these point of views and understandings. He cities Marxists critic Louis Alhusser, who believed “ideology and literature both represent an imaginary way in which man experience the real world”. Literature is essentially a part of ideology and puts ideology in literature. He argues that ideology is always there however, literature also offers a unique experience of imaginary world.
CONCLUSION
Eagleton’s Marxist perspective is clearly apparent in his writings, his work also demonstrates a regard for other theoretical approaches such as feminism and psychoanalysis. Eagleton makes it clear that Marxist criticism has not paid any attention to artistic form or formal feature of literature. Marx himself believed that literature should level a unity of form and content. He criticized the extreme use of stylish techniques but he did not completely deny the form of literature. Greek classical art for example had achieved the unity of form and content. It may be stated that Marxist criticism sees a dialectical relation between form and content and believes finally in the primacy of content. Eagleton states that this Marxist view of dialectical relationship between form and content rejects the formalist view of art and “Vulgar Marxism”.
Marxist criticism is not a single unified critical approach. It is a collection of various methods of literary/artistic analysis. Marxist critics have taken different position in their analysis of literature but the central idea that run through their analysis is that literature is the product of historical, social and economic structures. Despite the death of Marxism in political realm, it is essential to read it in the aesthetic world for complete interpretation of a text.
