Sunday, November 29, 2009

Eagleton is sassy!

I seem to recall, either in the reading or in class, something being said about how Bordieu did not ever really subscribe to any particular theory, but that he seemed to have pieces of all of them weaved into his writing. The same, I think, could be true for Eagleton, except Eagleton heralds, and rags on, post-modernism and Marxism with equal fervor. Both theories encompass the dispossessed, and yet they do not do enough. They promote change in a world where change is happening so quickly that, by the time theorists and reactionaries get their foot in the door, the door has decomposed and there are vines growing around the edges.

Eagleton's biting wit and commentary on the world at large, especially where powers are seen to take themselves too seriously, tears down the very illusion of stability and order, which is a distinctly post-modern tactic, especially when he talks about the fact that the center is constantly migrating (20). However, Eagleton refers to the idea where all things "normative" are undesirable as a "crass Romantic delusion" (13, 15). No one and nothing is sacred or safe with Eagleton, and yet his bleak (starkly realistic?) outlook is forgiven because of very Izzard-like ability to castigate eloquently.

[An addendum. There has been a misunderstanding, for which I take full responsibility. I confused the terms post-modern and post-structuralist. I meant the latter and not the former, which caused confusion. For me and others].

5 comments:

  1. Yeah Eddie Izzard shout out! Although, it would be interesting to see Eagleton giving a lecture in drag, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the contrary, Eagleton spends most of the text attacking capitalism and postmodernism as a manifestation of late capitalism in much the same position as Jameson. The only people "ragging on" Marxism in this text were other theorists he quoted and he was at pains to present them as having missed the boat by attacking Marxist thought.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, this guy is a Marxist to the core and does not leave any room for disagreement, even as he trys to present himself as so so logicsl. The successes of capitalism look like failures at the mement but I think will yet win the day, as creative outlets and art can also be used to reinforce culture and change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eagleton definitely was anti-capitalist, especially the American version, which is coming back to bite a lot of us. Socialism was his mantra, and in the purest form, is the most idealistic endeavor. I'm sorry to say, that although it looks good on paper, I don't think humans can pull it off. He discusses the "nature" of humans without going into how realistic it is to expect significant changes. Without those changes, I'm afraid it is a rather bleak twenty-first century ahead of us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott: I disagree with your disagreement. I think that Eagleton recognizes the limitations of Marxism, and he realizes its ineffectiveness in a world culture of capitalism, especially, as you say, with its misuses and misconceptions (37, 41-43). Additionally, a lot of his ideas are postmodern--whether he wants to admit it or not--and I think that where he sees postmodernism failing is in its execution, not in the idea itself.

    ReplyDelete