Terry
Eagleton’s Latest
Reviewed by Albert Colón
After
Theory by
Terry Eagleton
Hardcover: $25.00
Terry Eagleton’s After
Theory is a book that is meant to incite.
While Eagleton is not so naive as to believe that theory is ever going
to be exhausted -- he writes “if theory means a reasonably systematic
reflection on our guiding assumptions, it remains as indispensable as ever” (2)
-- he is bold enough to pick a fight with postmodernism. While this may not be a particularly new
tactic, it is the manner and the precision of the argument that Eagleton
presents that makes his book a brilliant and necessary document.
In a note on page 13, Eagleton defines postmodern
as “the contemporary movement of thought which rejects totalities, universal
values, grand historical narratives, solid foundations to human existence and
the possibility of objective knowledge.”
He goes on to wrote that postmodernism “is skeptical of truth, unity and
progress, opposes what it sees as elitism in culture, tends toward cultural
relativism, and celebrates pluralism, discontinuity and heterogeneity.“ This is a succinct description of
postmodernism and it seems to be difficult to argue with Eagleton’s definition. I don’t think, though, and I believe Eagleton
would agree with me, that the work of Michel Foucault or Edward Said ignores
the truth. Indeed, it takes the truth as
the basis of its argument. But I
digress. In his first chapter, entitled
“The Politics of Amnesia,” Eagleton lays down his argument that, while much of
the work of Foucault, Said, Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva,
Jurgen Habermas, Helene Cixous and Roland Barthes (among others) continues to
be of importance, it has had its run.
These writers cast such a huge shadow over the field of literary and
cultural criticism that what came after them were merely disciples who may have
expanded and applied their theories, but did nothing new in a practical
sense. Also, the world that greeted
these writers when they sat down at the their typewriters to write their books
is not the same world we live in today.
While Foucault (a personal favorite of mine) may have been cutting edge
in the 1980s, we are living in 2004.
Where are the great thinkers to tackle the present?
For Eagleton, the grave problem with postmodern
thought is that it has given up on asking the big question. Instead, it has celebrated difference (and
différance) to such an extent that we cannot see ourselves as being part of any
unified whole. Instead, we cultivate our
small groups and consider primarily the questions that are important to our
unique selves. This abandonment of
engaging the big social questions has led to an increasing interest in the
humanities on the body or vampires or porn; perhaps these topics are worthy of
serious intellectual thought, but what they represent to Eagleton is a white
flag that English majors are waving at the world. We know that we cannot engage the questions
that are relevant to most of the world, so we will work on the margins and
impress a very small audience. This
reminds me of Martin McQuillan’s introduction to Deconstruction: A Reader wherein he writes that “a definition (if
we really must have such things) of deconstruction might be that deconstruction
is an act of reading which allows the other to speak” (6). Eagleton scoffs at the fascination with the
Other in contemporary literary studies, preferring to remind us that the
situation of what we normally define as the Other is really the situation of
most of the world’s population. They are
not exotic and our study of their differences merely serves to highlight our
need to congratulate ourselves on having taken them seriously enough to write a
paper on their problems. Eagleton
challenges us to see that their problems are our problems and we must begin to
behave knowing that as an immutable fact.
It may be important to note at this point that
Eagleton is a theorist and he champions the work of those theorists that look
at the big picture. He has a lot of good
to say about Foucault’s The Order of
Things, but he does have a problem with Derrida. The problem he has with him can be summarized
quite easily. Derrida is a fine close
reader, but he reads too closely.
Eagleton believes that Derrida may be too enamored with words and their
seemingly endless possibilities. The
major problem, though, that he has with postmodernism and its practitioners is
that they have rejected Marx and socialism.
Most of the seminal French philosophers of the 1960s were weaned on
Nietzsche and Marx, but they decided to reject Marx as outdated and
impractical. Eagleton remains perhaps
the most important Marxist literary critic writing in the English language and
it is the turning away from Marx that is at the core of postmodernism’s problems. He makes his claim boldly at the end of
chapter four, entitled “Losses and Gains”:
Most of the objections to
theory are either false or fairly trifling.
A far more devastating criticism of it can be launched. Cultural theory as we have it promises to
grapple with some fundamental problems, but on the whole fails to deliver. It has been shamefaced about morality and
metaphysics, embarrassed about love, biology, religion and revolution, largely
silent about evil, reticent about death and suffering, dogmatic about essences,
universals and foundations, and superficial about truth, objectivity and disinterestedness. This, on any estimate, is rather a large
slice of human existence to fall down on.
It is also, as we have suggested before, rather an awkward moment in history to find oneself with
little or nothing to say about such fundamental questions. (101-2)
The statement I quote above serves as the engine
for the rest of the book. Eagleton
writes four chapters that serve to remind his readers that there are such
things as truth, morality, evil, and virtue in this world and that it is
perhaps time to abandon irony as the primary way to respond to the world’s
problems.
In the fifth chapter of the book, “Truth, Virtue
and Objectivity,” Eagleton makes his boldest claim yet for socialism. As he writes, “one reason for judging
socialism to be superior to liberalism is the belief that human beings are
political animals not only in the sense that they need to take account of each
other’s need for fulfillment, but that in fact they achieve their deepest
fulfillment only in terms of each other” (122).
This simple statement is Eagleton’s call to arms. In our present political climate it is not
enough to write about a sexy topic, get a grade, get a degree, and get a
job. We have to get away from simplistic
self-interest and political disinterest.
In the chapter entitled “Morality,” Eagleton makes it clear what morality
is. It is “all about the enjoyment and
abundance of life” (141). It is not the
cynical morality employed by our current administration on the issue of the war
on terror. As Eagleton points out, “in
the so-called war against terrorism, for example, the word ‘evil’ really means:
Don’t look for a political explanation ... You can ignore the plight of the
Palestinian people, or of those Arabs who have suffered under squalid
right-wing autocracies supported by the West for its own selfish, oil-hungry
purposes” (141). This statement is not
merely a gratuitous shot at the Bush administration; it serves as a running
example for Eagleton’s argument. Where
is the tradition in postmodern thought, with its praising of relativism, that
will adequately address the issues we face?
Once we accept that truth, objectivity, virtue and
nature (among other things) are real, then we can move in the direction of true
engagement and we theorists can actually be relevant again. We have to also come to terms with the fact
that not everything is culturally constructed.
We are animals and we have to deal with some realities that other
animals have to deal with, such as sexual differences and death. This does not mean that culture has no place
in forming us; rather, it means that there are other very powerful things that
have say in the way we are. To me, it
appears that Eagleton is not so much dismissing all of postmodernism as much as
he is challenging its claims, claims that have become so accepted as to go
unchallenged.
In the
postscript to the book, Eagleton reminds the
_____________________
Albert
Colon is a DA student at