Interview With Terry Eagleton

Interview with Terry Eagleton Author(s): Andrew Martin, Patrice Petro and Terry Eagleton Reviewed work(s): Source:
Social Text, No. 13/14 (Winter - Spring, 1986), pp. 83-99 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466200 . Accessed: 05/02/2013 07:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Feb 2013 07:55:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WithTerry Interview Eagleton

ANDREW MARTIN/PATRICE PETRO
As oneofthe marxist anda longstanding critics editor foremost literary corresponding needsno introduction here. Thefollowing interview ofthis journal, Terry Eagleton with himwas donebyAndrew Martin and Patrice Petro andpublished in a campus of Studies. Both the interviewers and called The Iowa publication Journal Literary it a ourselves deserved wider thought readership. I wonderifwe might themilieuin whichyoudevelopedas beginbydiscussing an intellectual and critic. Perhapsyou could also tellus a bitabout yourrelationand experiences sincehisworking-class shipwithRaymondWilliams, background at Cambridgeseem in manyways similarto yourown. I came from and mygrandparents had come Salford whichis nearManchester overto themilltownsof Lancashireas a partof thegreatIrishmigration. During endedup inSalford. theDepressionthey movedintothecitiesand eventually So my parentswere first generation English,althoughstillwith a strongIrishcultural workerin what was thenthe largest was an engineering background. My father works in the country. engineering It was highly unusualin thosedays forsomeoneto come from thatkindof a I from was then a to in what school, background, grammar Cambridge. wentthere it in 1961 and was, I suppose, thoroughly traumatized a not by culturally way dissimilar to theexperiences of RaymondWilliams.In thosedaysCambridge was evenmorevisibly a bastionfor small culture it is There was a than upper-class today. of working-class students who wereverymuchon thedefenstudents, percentage muchof an enclave.Politicalactivity was obviouslyone way out. At the sive,very timeit would have been mainly theearlynucleardisarmament somemovement, with.Therewas also a Labour Club, although itwas run thingI became involved schoolmarxists-Etonianmarxists!-and so a certain amount largely byex-public of interesting friction existedbetween,as it were,the genuine"prols" and those who had gone over to theirside. I metWilliamswhileI was an undergraduate. He had come to Cambridge as a Fellow of Jesus College the same year I did and he seemed to me, as I first himin lectures, of thefaculty encountered to be theonlymember to be talking any sort of language I could recognize.He was, to be precise, simplydiscussing in a way I foundat oncevery literature difficult and unaccustomed to andyetwhich seemedto plug intowhat I feltI knew.So, when I graduatedfrom Cambridgein 83
84
Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro
me to becomea ResearchFellow at hiscollegeand I taught 1964, Williamsinvited therewithhim until1969 when I leftfor -Oxford. That was a veryinteresting the period because it meantthatI livedthrough of the1960s really withWilliams variouspoliticaldevelopments actively, working and witha numberof students such as StephenHeath and Colin MacCabe, for become But I thinkone problemwas that who have since well-known. instance, on while influential Williams, enormously mydevelopment-and I thinkhe was thesinglemostimportant and in manywaysmoralinfluence intellectual, political, on me at the time-had himselfhad a curious career. He had been in adult to theuniversity educationand comein from that offered late;hewas actually fairly a Fellowshipon the basis of his Cultureand Society.He neverreallyadjustedto inthelate1960s whenhe had around and there was a moment academia,however, him a group of radical socialiststudents and critics who would have verymuch likedto organizesome kindof intervention into the CambridgeEnglishFaculty, had he giventheword.But I think was thatWilliamshimself theirony had had to and he was, in a certain learnto workindependently sense,properly wearyofwhat There seemedthe possibility had happened to Scrutiny. that a similarsituation, morepolitical, could have occurred certainly although again and Williamsdid not inthat.The variouspeople aroundhimthenmovedoff wantto be involved to other or new universities in Britain.I movedto Oxfordin places, mainlythered-brick muchof thepathologicalantipathy because I stillpreserved to Cam1969, partly I in a had felt from the and worked which outset, because, partly having bridge, I I with see how run wanted to could Williams, way tremendously productive things on myown. It was also becoming clearthattheCambridge would EnglishFaculty not in factgive me a lectureship for which,in thosedays at least,was necessary I I a Fellow of the did some but financial reasons. (As was not a College teaching attackagainstWilliams Lecturer).Part of theirrefusalwas, I think,an indirect withhim.He was too powerful and influential as I was identified a figure to himself, be directly one or two ofhiscolleaguesand students werenot. assaulted,although In a curiousway, thatwas an earlierversionof the latersituation knownas the it never reached such dramatic "MacCabe Affair," proportions. although Untilabout 1968 or 1969, you wereclearly engagedwithquestionsoriginally In thelate 60s in Culture and The Long Revolution. raisedbyWilliams and Society and early70s, however, concerns towards within you shifted your developments in terms Wouldyou explainthisshift Frenchtheory. of contemporary politicalor social events? likemoving from one bodyoftheory to simply Lookingback at thetimeitfelt ofthatmove.As the one can see now thepoliticaldeterminants another, although in Europe and theUnitedStates,and as new bodies politicalscenewas quickening
An Interview with Terry Eagleton
85
weredeveloping, ofsocialists, of theory there was a younger ofwhichI generation was one, who thenfelt thattheoldernew left, of whichWilliamswas a prototype, norsufficiently was neither sufficiently theoretically politically rigorous engaged.I I thinkmy own movement towards marxismdates fromthat period. Certainly I would havecalledmyself don'tthink whenI first cameup to Cambridge, a marxist butI clearly would have bythemiddleto late60s. In an interesting that way,I think ifone looks at thewhole trajectory, of us moved what happenedis thata number intowhatwe tookto be a morerigorous and insomewaysmorepolitically relevant formof theoryand, fromthat perspective, it looked as thoughWilliams was But it is dangerousto thinkyou have standingstill,or perhapseven regressing. or got beyondWilliamsbecause he has a curiousknackof, by appapreempted, or at leastsomeversion ofit,which a position, still, rently standing actually holding if And of end it is one looks at the the up endorsing. you way interesting theory in has since then: into forms of French or marxism Althusserian politics developed thelate60s and early70s and thenout again in thevery of conditions the changed later70s. Williamswas in a senseprefiguring, in muchof his work,the kindsof of allegiancethatpeople might now findthemselves with.I positionsand forms would not want,howeversimply to negatethesortof critiqueof Williams'work thatI wrotein Criticism and Ideology. I think thata lot of thatcritique, theoretiI I still But did not to see stands. what and what have see come then, callyspeaking, since because of developing it is not a matter of theoretical difference conditions, withWilliamsbutrather withthepoliticalforce ofhiswork:hisattitude agreement towardsthecritic'srole in theacademy,his attitude criticism about what literary should be, and evenhis stancetowardsculturalstudiesand theneed to transgress in Williams'work, boundaries.All of thatwas strikingly present interdisciplinary at least in embryonic of Williams' from theoutset.And it is thoseelements form, workthatpeople likemyself are now returning to underdifferent and conditions, are more than the of or doctrinal distinckinds theoretical they really important I would justadd, as a final tionsthatwe had previously. himself, note,thatWilliams ofcourse,hasn'tactuallystood stillsincethe60s either. Williamsis muchcloserto marxism now thanhe everwas, apartfrom and notveryfortunate, theverybrief, in theCommunist I think that periodof his activemembership Partyas a student. Williams'workis, so to speak,effectively marxist and objectively work,whatever label we mightstrategically use forthat. Your valorizationof Williams'work nevertheless seems to me surprising, since,as you have indeed noted, Williamsworksin isolationfromnot only the academy but also fromwhat mightpotentially develop into a counter-public as you suggest? sphere.How, then,is he able to be as politically effective It is a strong partofWilliams'image,thatqualityof isolation.Thereis a sense
86
in whichhe has beena kindofeminence inBritain, and largely with griseon theleft of coursewithsome verynegative ones as well. But verypositiveeffects although what I realize now, more strongly than I did before,is thatWilliamsis himself aware of hisown isolationand actually makesthisclearin hisinterview withNew Review in Politics and Letters. own much of a His isolation is the effect Left very I as to it come into existence. was struck were,failing sphere, counter-public bythe in he in his earlier work Culture and about terms, way talked, verydistanciating thepoliticalmoment, thehistorical as being moment, Societybecause he identified forhimvery Whatthenhappened,as the1960s and 1970s drewon, was negative. the emergence of new political developments in which Williams was involved. of the new leftaround the peace movement and the Certainlythe resurgence variouskindsof interventions the of the of the Labour during period government 1960s werepartof this.And eventodayWilliamshas playedan activepartin the organizationin Britaincalled the "Socialists' Society,"which is an attemptto of variouskindsand to put theirwork at the serviceof the organizeintellectuals and the Labour movement trade union movement So he has had that generally. of involvement, but I thinkthatat the same timethe sense of the earlier history dissociation remained and provedsomething thathe could nevertruly getbeyond. Yet I think it is interesting notonly,as itwere,psychologically, to puttheproblem but also in terms of thefailure of theemergence of thematerial conditions which could have made Williamsan even moreinfluential has been. than he figure It soundslikePoliticsand Letters contains manyrevelations foryou,inspiteof the factthatyou workedverycloselywith Williamsduringthoseyears. and hisisolationintheacademy, was Yes, partofWilliams'politicalisolation, the resultof what we might call a rather civilizedor enigmatic discourse. politely And indeedthere and wereways I took thison in mycritiqueof himin Criticism in of to which his discourse was related that isolation. Ideology,ways verystyle That is, somebodywho is speaking,and fora long timewas forcedto speak, a and whatwas languagethatwas notpopular,whichcould easilybe misinterpreted a languageofself-protection. I am therefore struck also, to somedegree, bytheway thatof all his work,Politicsand Lettersis theone in whichhe is themostcandid, wherein thecompanyof comrades, so to speak,he talkedopenlyabout hiscareer. it is a mistaketo One otherpointabout Williamswhichis relevant is thatI think man behindthepublicpersona, search,as manypeople have done, fortheprivate becauseWilliamshas alwaysbeensomeonewho seeshislife in historical terms and inoften If are losses in or of there that quitedistanciating ways. problems, problems has there have also been some been or Williams able to solve accountability, gains. certain himself necessities-while problems negotiate by seeingthemas historical neveronce beingfatalistic. One of theotherimportant hisworkas a about things
An Interview withTerry Eagleton
87
itoften has a steely realism aboutit,is thathe has never succumbed whole,although to thevarioustidesoffashionable whichfrom timeto time post-marxist pessimism, drift around our societies. An interesting about Williams is hisattraction culture. But thing forAmerican is a tension in hisviewofAmerica as at oncean ideal and at thesame time there as a certainpoliticalreality, vis-a-vis Britain. particularly the progressive Yes, Williamshas been notable forhis abilityto remember momentswithinthe most negativeof culturesor bodies of thought.Afterall, Cultureand Societywas, amongotherthings, therecordof a highly conservative lineofthought from some of feat Williams able to abstract was which, dialectics, by a positivemoment.He has always had thatintellectual and politicalbreadthof visionand,interms ofhisresponse to American itmarks himoff culture, from, say, the Frankfurt School, wherethe assumptionof a much more one-sidedattitude I think towardcontemporary Sometimes Williams capitalistcultureis prevalent. has been seen as over-charitable in that respect,sometimesmovingclose to a left-liberalism. But thenhe also has been from thevery start a genuinely dialectical with a dialiectical cast to his has work which thinker, alwayssoughtto genuinely as Brecht has from the new bad rather than the start, putit, things good old things. in thecontemis everpresent intellectual The conceptof the"disinterested" porary academy, at once an ideal, a standard to be met, but also a way of You tracethispositionin Literary an atomizeduniversity structure. maintaining "man letters." the Victorian back to of Why do you thinkthis ideal Theory continuesto have such forcein thepresent-day academy? I think thatnotionsof disinterestedness beginto crop up in the18thcentury withwhat Jiurgen of the bourgeoispublic sphere, Habermas calls the emergence and whatis striking about thatdisinterestedness is itsobviousinterestedness. That is to say,onlythosewho have an "interest" can be disinterested, those who only have a stakein theculture, who are propertied, have a titleto enterintoa certain of discourse;thewhole discourseof theEnlightenment, "disinterested" form for So what one is in at that as whole becomes visible a example. looking history highly elitist and exclusionist class formation-although one which,likemany certainly class formations, needs to cast its languagein universal The role of disinterms. is most forcefully terestedness understoodtoday in termsof that history. What of thecommodification whichwas taking of literature, happenswiththegrowth the 18th century, is that thereis now a sense,because of the place throughout of thetextor writing existence in whichliterature as a commodity, is in principle available to everybody-whatever theactual restrictions of social access to literatureand power.Nonetheless, thecommodification ofliterature (and thisagain is a
88
reversion to a dialecticalposition held by Williams) actuallyliberatesliterary court and productionfroma veryspecific range of interested institutions--the organizedreligion,forexample-when it was a part of the previousfeudalist, absolutist then,and bya epoch,onlyto abandon it to themarket place. Ironically, the of disinterestedness as a critical contradiction, possibility striking very concept, as an intellectual of the posture,dependsupon a sortof promiscuous availability of is is. This that it,any"gentleman" literary commodity. Anybody capable judging in turn, If situationitself, is an effect of commodity one looks at the production. in that way, thenone sees wherethe so-called disinterested intellectual history to do in mylectures and inThe Function is comesfrom. WhatI've tried ofCriticism to go on to tracethedestiny oftheconceptintothe19thcentury and beyond.I think thatthe greatcrisis,the crisisaround MatthewArnold,forexample,is, among otherthings, either thatit becomesimplausible to believethatyou can transcend sectionaland social interests the conflicts betweenthose interests have (because or to is of and believe that there a total social intensified) any longer body on which intellectuals can as it intellectual a transcendenwere, knowledge get fix, of tally. It seems to me that one of the problemsthat dogged the institution and no doubt a plurality of intellectual criticism, areas, is that eitheryou try in all itsvarious to reproduce thatrole of thedisinterested intellectual, fruitlessly liberalhumanist or that the role is now you candidly recognize historically guises, it is past,and you try and do something else. The problem is thatwhat devaluated, that"something to be a kindofcravenwayforcriticism, else" is tendseither a kind of technocracy, a specialized, which has abandoned professionalized technocracy to a society or,as with beyondtheacademy, anyhope of speakingmorerelavantly I of for the left, you tryand work out some otherkind set of functions criticism. don'tthink criticism has solvedthatproblem yetand as longas itdoesn'tfollowthe path of the left,I thinkit is actuallystructurally incapable of doing so. seems to have taken on a new The role of the "disinterested" intellectual or more theMcCarthy the cold Era, war, function perhaps properly, during during and "end the were others whenDaniel Bell,Arthur ofideology" Schlesinger tolling and attempting as an apparently institutionto construct theuniversity value-free or pointof view,but insteadthe"vital one thatrepresented no particular interest " center. And thenin the 1960's, with the arrivalof a more heterogeneous body of studentswithinthe academies, came the breakdown of a common academic and the academic community-thatwas the language shared betweenstudents was disinterested academicians ofcertain pointwhentheinterestedness apparently of theacademy dramatically exposed. It was also a periodin whichthecomplicity was withthewar inVietnam, withdestructive withmilitary violence, technologies,
89
I think and that thatthisis thecrisiswhichwe have inherited, clear to everybody. in its contemporary literary theory, leanings,springsout of thatperiod. Theory It happenswhen, of a discipline. doesn't simply happenat anytimein thehistory for whateverhistoricalreasons, thereis a need for that disciplineto become downand it rationales havebroken self-reflexive: when,for example,itstraditional needs some otherrationale-when it needs to establishdistancefromitself. If it if it in the 1960s and becomes does that,as it had done in literary since, theory assets but in self-reflexive and no longertakes forgranteda rangeof routinized On theone hand, some way estranges thenitcan have one oftwo functions. them, those practices,givingthem an even more solid theorycan simplyreconfirm foundation.(I thinksome of the ratherde-guttedimitationsof marxismand structuralism and otherfancy Frenchproductsthatfoundthereway intoBritain and the United States have been preciselya way of doing this by givingnew of intellectual Alternatively, you can capitalto a clapped-outindustry). injections routinized in will those a that raisethetheoretical practices way estrange question less about theYale School and them.Here we are talking to thepointof changing more perhapsabout Bertolt Brecht. rootsof German is a movein theacademyto return to certain there Currently but to the the not the tradition Brecht or School, Frankfurt of theory-although assoicated tradition with hermeneutics Gadamer, Husserl, Heidegger, of variously to Habermas,we Habermas. Givenyourown reference and, ifitbecomesmarxist, were wondering whether you believe that hermeneutics-a marxist resolvethe double bind of criticism you have described? hermeneutics--can As a preliminary footnote here,as we beginto talkabout Germanand French to I think ironicthattheonlyroleleft thatitis interesting and somewhat traditions, of those two be to serve the societies as Anglo-American may meetingpoint traditions. SincetheFrenchand theGermansdon't tendto talk uncommunicating thenwe might have to conductthedialogueforthem.Hermeneutics to each other, so I am always not or inBritain as itis in theUnitedStates, is as popular as discussed muchdiscussedand I thatitis aroundand very struck whenI cometo theUS to find be so. Some reasons to explainwhythismight beginto ponderthepoliticalcontext raisesquestionsof fundaclear. Hemeneutics, it goes withoutsaying, seem fairly thatthere are Itis also thecase, however, about interpretation. mentalimportance kind of mild academic liberal with a forms of hermeneutics whichblendvery easily humanismin this countrywhich, in one sense, while apparently raisingevery neverseemsto me conceivablequestionand beingveryanxious to question-raise, to raisethequestionswhichreally whichmaybe one possiblyaccuratereason hurt, fortherapidabsorption forms ofhermeneutics intotheacademy.I think ofcertain thatthereis a problemabout what hermeneutics is. Obviouslyit would be some-
90
of a category-mistake to saythat,as marxist critism is produced,itis in facta thing if to on interpretahermeneutics it seems hermeneutics is a reflection because, me, tionitalso engagesquestionscommonto a number ofdifferent critical approaches. It is therefore ironic thatsomeacademicsand intellectuals do seemto wantto make of hermeneutics, as itwere,a third positionor another position,one thatcan only in termsof a rejection be explainedpolitically of (or a reactionto) such critical positions as marxism. Therfore,the firstquestion one has to raise to a hermeneuticist-and we know thattheylove people raisingquestionsso I'm sure wouldn't be offended they by this-is, what exact status do you thinkyour discoursehas? And I thinkone problemis thatit is a discourseof a highlevelof issues about the act of interpretation but raisingcertainfundamental generality, standingat a ratherdisablingdistancefromapplyingit in practicalways, both and politically. To raiseyetanother has hermeneutics textually question:obviously been politically not least of all in the famousGadamer-Habermas interrogated, and has raised questions of ideology and of the unproblematic confrontation, of a in whichhermeneutics tradition seemscomplicitious. But beyond assumption thesequestionsthere is thequestionofthepoliticsof history, thepoliticalimplicationsofand assumptions ofthepastor therecovery of in,forexample,therecovery lost or semi-lostmeaning.That is to say, it seems to me that the recovery or reconstruction of themeaningof past textshas to be a good deal morehistorical and politicalthanmostforms of hermeneutics one comes acrossseemto believe.I don't see why it sould be a paradigm for culturalstudies. In that sense the which simplysays that we apparentlyneutral methodologyof hermeneutics, shouldraisequestionsabout themeaning ofthepast and itsrelation to thepresent, can actually licensea kindofprogram ofcritical which swerves activity continually back to classicaltexts, in therelationship whichis continually interested between but onlyconceivedof in a particular past and present, way. Now hereI'd liketo maketwo points.First, thereare,after all, otherways of thepast to thepresent thanthemostfamiliar There relating waysofhermeneutics. are themoredramatic and violent ofWalterBenjamin, hermeneutics whosewhole betweenpast and presentis more political,more conceptionof the relationship and more than muchof what one finds apocalyptic, certainly urgent historically out of now. marxists to areofcourseconcerned Second,although coming Germany I the relation between and think for marxists these question present past meaning, are questionsalways subordinated to anotherquestion-one thattendsnot to be asked byhermeneutics-namely, thequestionofthefuture. Thereis no viewofthe or thepastfor marxism for other kindsofviablepositions) which (or I think present is not underthesignof a possibleor desirablefuture. In one sensethatmyseemto be a strange to saybecausequiteobviously ina material thefuture, sense,does thing notexist.But thenneither does thepast.What I meanis thatin themaking of such relations we haveto calculatewherewe aretrying to getto between pastand future,
91
in thefirst whichI find notonlyin dimension place. Itisthisfuture-oriented lacking, hermeneutical but in manyformsconnectedto it. thinking, You have beentalking about a different visionofpast and present in terms of the future, and thusraise the questionof what you mean in your own work by and "tradition." and Ideologyyou speak,as a For examplein Criticism "history" To quote directly, marxist, of feeling of a tradition." acutely"bereft you say that as a marxist, homeguestofEurope,a precociousbutparasitic "a tolerated youfeel, alien." In WalterBenjamin:Or Towards a Revolutionary on theother Criticism, betweenhistory and tradition, in the hand, you speak about a real distinction betweenhistory, or the time of the ruling Benjaminiansense of the difference or the time of the oppressedand exploited.Finally,in classes, and tradition, thepromise in Walter that Literary Theory, youseemto fulfill Benjamin; suggested is, thereseems to emergein your work a certaintradition of marxistcriticism. Could youcomment a bitmoreon yourviewsofhistory and tradition and theplace a marxisttradition? of Literary Theoryin forging Now I would wantto look a bitcritically at someofthegeneralizations I made in Criticism and Ideology,becauseoften I was referring to theendemic empiricism and anti-intellectualism of British culturewhichresisted the sortsof traditions I believeI was- and stillam-working within. I not was aware Perhaps sufficiently thatI was really of thetradition oftheory, and thatshouldneverbe onlyspeaking fora marxist thefirst or majorway ofspeaking oftradition. Butafter is an all there and of tradition British of and other socialism, working-class important impressive forms ofmilitancy and itwas, perhaps, inthe1970s,partofmy partofthatmoment thatI reallydidn'tdare take in the fullweightof takingdistancefromWilliams, that. I wasn't reallyraisingthe question of how my own work relatedto that indigenouspolitical traditionwhich my marxismtended to underplay-and I would like to correct the balance. What I would want to say about tradition now from a marxist pointof viewis how important a conceptitis. Perhapsthisis morethanstating theobvious.There and practicein the1960s was, after all, in thegreatexplosionof radical thought a valuableskepticism about thevery idea oftradition which and, forall itsfutility, all thatone was trying was sometimes to breakaway from. Thus a kindof eternal laterresonances, notin theeuphoric or hippiestyle, butin certain "nowness" finds formsof contemporary lefttalk which seems to fetishize called the something in it as rests on roll of thedice. the were,everything conjuncture," which, "present Williamssaid long ago, in Culture I and Society, think thata society thatcan live resourcesis poor indeed. It is a structural of late effect only by contemporary because theymust suppress bourgeoissocietiesthat theymust represshistory, alternative forms of history. Also their tendsto be thehistory of thesame, history
92
of the commodity in whateverfashionably tendsto be the eternalreturn varied So the first would be to underline the that returns. vital nature of point simply guise formarxists. "We marxists," once the conceptof tradition "have said, Trotsky This of courseis not to signaltheuncritical or subseralways livedin tradition." in conservative vient relationsof traditionwhich one finds,characteristically, I think, betweenhistory, yes,Benjamin'sdistinction thinking. meaningI suppose class or sort of and tradition an alternative was very histories, history, ruling I to it some of think me because made sense what is a the within important problem lot Britishleft,where there has been over the past ten or fifteen a of years lot of in and now feminist a work alternative labour, history, history working-class, fromthe HistoryWorkshopmovement. Now, one of the critilargelystemming is thatone can fallintothetrapofseeing cismsmadeofthatmovement of tradition, in the socialist or radical as an alternative sense of some tradition, seeing simply butunbroken alternative as itwere,"ghosts"official which, continuity suppressed own about about the resourcesof the tradition, history. Benjamin's thinking with that model. His tradition is muchless an oppressed,is a way of breaking whichcould be blockedout wholeand entire alternative (as I think history, ghostly some labourhistorians and somefeminist tendto think);rather itis a set historians a setofpointsofconfrontation, within itself: ofrupture of,ifyoulike,crises history or conflict, whereyou can see theoutlineofan alternative without to parrot having it.His tradition theassemblage ofthosemoments whicharealwaysforhim is,then, reassembledand reconstructed accordingto the demands of the presentconI So to come want back to the "presentconjuncture" but through that juncture. different perspective. On yetanotherrelatedsubject,we wanted to ask you about your view of and Literary rhetoric, again drawing Benjamin upon yourviewsin Walter Theory. In Walter rhetoric with deconstruction and, withreferences Benjamin, you equate to de Man, argue thatrhetoric has retreated from politicsand social practiceand that becomea demystifier of ideology itself provesthe "finalideologicalrationale In forpoliticalinertia." Literary Theory,by contrast, you explicitly appropriate rhetoric and an entirely kind of for the purposes of political criticism different discursive viewsofrhetoric practice.Wouldyoucomment upon thesetwodifferent in your recentwork? I think the apparentdisparity fromthe factthatthereare different emerges of rhetoric and, indeed,thetermis now certainly meanings up forpoliticalgrabs. Rhetoricis the site of struggle ratherthan a receiveddefinition. The rhetorical itself tradition is a setofquitevariedtraditions and whatI was trying to pinpoint in theBenjaminbook was really of notions two,I think, quitepolitically incompatible rhetoric. One is theuse oftheterm to indicate discourse as powerand performance
93
and therefore as alwaysconjunctural, within institutions. The as alwaysinscribed in itslatestform othermeaning of rhetoric, sinceNietzscheand identified withde Man, views discourseas the play of tropesand calls into questionnot only the of meaning itself but indeed thepossibility of practice.That is to say, possibility behindthatNietzscheaninsistence, thatNietzscheanimpulseinherited by many liesa skepticism aboutthevery about coherence, deconstructionists, contemporary the veryfoundedness of the conceptof practicewhich cannot but be political. seems to me a coded responseto, or a polemic against, Again, this skepticism theories of practice.Now it clearlyisn't our pointto stand,as some materialist whichthenis seento solve marxisms have done,on a conceptof concrete practice as all the problems.Clearly,practiceis as difficult, ambiguous,and many-sided the impulsebehindthat neoelse. I thinkthat one has to understand anything would spell wereit successful, Nietzschean to deconstruct which, attempt practice Ifwhat is beingsaid is simplya the death of any effective social transformation. kindof therapeutic of certain rather fetishized notions interrogation over-simple, deconstrucofpractice, thenI think thatmarxists and other radicalscan learnfrom return to tion.ButI don'tthink thatthisis whatis beingsaid. I believethatone must the of rhetoric not for a moment a theory while which, suppressing problemsof a graspof thefactthat or nevertheless beginsfrom over-simplification ambiguity, is indeedthe nexus betweendiscourseand power. rhetoric in theformaldevicesof literature, or In yourown work you are interested the and also with waysin whichthese term"cultural whatwe might production," devicesare activatedin reception, or whatwe might call "culturalconsumption." Does yourinterest in reception differ-and if so, in what ways-from what has been ratherbroadlytermed"receptiontheory"?And how would you recently as represented and other by theworkof TonyBennett respondto thoseattempts, marxistcritics, to redirect receptiontheoryin a more radical, more politically relevant direction? It may be interesting to see receptiontheory, like all othercontemporary in the 1960s. What we are really its roots back as literary again having practices, demandsfor thatclimate is thatreaders demandparticipation, justas within saying In otherwords of variouskindswereclearly democratic very strong. participation of it is part,and inprinciple a greater thanusual part,ofthedethroned mythology in the of thattheory literature. It would be interesting to tracethe development whichare characteristic of variousinstitutional changes,demands,and programs the1960s. Atthesametime, one has to saythatmuchstandard Europeanreception has been criticized for and Americanreception theory, theoryfor that matter, of contemporary a function merely positinga readerwho is, veryoften, reading formations and not a function of thewhole politicalsystem as well. We are never
94
in thefirst Nor can we put magically intosuspension therest simply place readers. of our existence when we approach a text.There is a dangerof a kind of leftthattheclassroom, ifyoulike,is academicism whichwould seemto presume there, the onlyplace in whichmeanings And thatobviouslyhas to be are constructed. The otherproblemin relationto thework of leftreception theories, challenged. whichyou have touchedupon in your question,is indeedthe emphasison contimeto time,lead to a kindof carnivalof consumerism whichcan, from sumption or a fetishism of theimmediate This can be justas narrowly readingconjuncture. de-historicized in itsown way as themorestandardforms of bourgeoiscriticism. We are alwaysmorethanthecurrent a matter It is partly of conjuncture. reading how far we extend the word "reception." Now a lot of the epistemological are perhapsnearing or at a kindof solution, problemsraisedin thosearguments leastconsensus. Forexample,I think themeaning ofthephrase"thetext initself"is now one thatmostofus would reject. Itis clearly I think thatthere essentialistic. are certain forms of of voluntarism and equally reading interpretation, apparently based on a plurality ofinterpretations, whichmostofus would also wantto reject. So there is a certain amountof commongroundheretoo. But after thoseexplorationsareover,one muststillreturn to whatis at stakeformarxists: theownership, or at leastcontrol That brings thefocusto an of,themeansof cultural production. in critic. one within In the sense,working important problem beingan oppositional critic ofbeingmerely reactive academyas an oppositional you are alwaysindanger to cultural Thatis structural to work,or cultural phenomena, producedelsewhere. the academy,howevermuch you may rightly talk of certainkinds of cultural within theacademy-and suchtalkis morewidelydone in theUnited production Statesthanit is in Europe. Then thereis thequestionof when,we take a film text and demystify textand do an ideologicalanalysis ofit, it,or whenwe takea literary ofwhether whatwe aredoingis morevalid.Thatis to say,whether suchunmasking can revealcertaindominantmeaningsso as to prevent themfromentering the That taskis something whichone vital,I think, generalunconscious unchallenged. has to defend, butat thesametime ithas itsbuilt-in limits and a radicalcritic cannot in theendbe content withit.We haveto be talking abouttheproduction ofcultural notonlyinterms ofartifacts ofother butin terms forms ofproduction of meanings, cultural This is thelong-range Nonetheless, meanings. perspective. beingan oppositional criticdoes not simplymean somebodywho is in some way involvedin academia. It does not, in the first place, mean somebodywho takes the already fashioned itto a certain however thatmay productand submits necessary reading, be at the moment. How would you respond,though,to the work represented and by Bennett and particularly to their thatmarxism shouldn'tbe concerned others, argument withquestionsofaesthetics value?Bennett oraesthetic says,forexample,that"the
95
is not thatof producing an aesthetic, the criticism object of marxist of revealing butthatofintervening within the truth about an alreadypre-established literature, social processesof readingand writing." once one beginsto I think thatonce one beginsto arguewithTonyBennett, of the of like "the and writing," a social processes reading unpack phrase meaning of the issues whichhave thenone would probablyfind oneself with kinds working beentraditionally his knownas aesthetics. IfTonyBennett spells positionout more or thenI think thesorts or concrete us a little more exemplary practice, clearly gives that one of questionsor responsive devices and texturaloperationsand effects would findoneselfwithin a properly politicalcontext-and thatis thevaluable of to it-add what point up people really mean when theyuse the category inBennett's I think there is a danger In other "aesthetic." work,and inwork words, of thatkind,of implicitly notion of to a aesthetics and then subscribing bourgeois think in much deconstructive it. I there is a as properly thinking refusing Just danger of implicitly of art, to utterly notionsoftruth, untenable metaphysical subscribing or presence them. or groundand then, of course,piouslygoingon to deconstruct But term could for a time. the "aesthetic" one that is, Obviously, play game long like manysuchterms, too valuable to be surrendered to theoppositionwithout a to It is not for a critic all have aesthetic marxist say, right, you your struggle. enough we'regoingto do something else: call itpolitics, discourses and you can keepthem, ofall,I don'tthink thatthe in social processes or whatever. First call itintervention tendsto word "aesthetic"is thatsimple.Very oftenin his work,Tony Bennett of German with a certainfounding momentin the history equate the aesthetic thatthisis Germanidealismto be precise,and thensays quite properly thought, else. But theword "aesthetic" and so we want to do something clearlyuntenable word thanthat,one which and flexible seemsto me a muchmoreindeterminate it is thatis goingon whenpeople of whatever to analyzethespecificity reallytries to a workof art,rather thansaying tendto, thattheyare responding say, as they kindof thegardenor taking a certain aredigging a rideon a bus. Itdemarcates they and I are in agreement, social practice. Now of coursewe know,and hereBennett in theextreme. Of thattheboundaries ofthesocialpracticearehistorically shifting coursewe wantto reject notionsof aesthetics, buttheword aesthetic essentialistic coversa multitude ofareas and responses and those,I think, cannotbe abandoned. to say,well,I'mnotreally It would have beeninconceivable to someonelikeBrecht concerned concerned withtheaesthetic value ofmyplayor poem,whatI was really would be: withwas whether effective. To whichthesimpleanswer itwas politically could it been if it how on earth have and was well, badly done, boring,tedious, of the the two for and effective? Those Brecht, questions political politically he would would nothave been so disassociated. aesthetic, By theaesthetic simply ofcertain kindsofdramatic and textural liketheproduction have meant something
96
oftheworkacceptable, whichmade thepoliticalcontent exciteffects interesting, to So with that audiences. and ing, meaningof thought-provoking particular I thinkone is talkingfroma properly of view. aesthetic leftist point One assumptionis thatyou can culturally or politically activatetextsthat or would otherwise be received inan apparently "disinterested" fashion. value-free theassumption Withotherleft suchas PeterBiirger, theorists, however, reception are alwayspreempted institutions. is thatradicalmeanings So, ina byconservative an to break a certain or workrepresents attempt with sense,Bennett's defeatism view texts and institutions. incorporationist of I think AndI do think there is a wayofusingleft theory you'reright. reception of incorporationist to counter themostdefeatist forms because,as you arguments or is a standardor fixedmeaning assumethatthere pointout,they surreptitiously value to theinstitution or thetext.I verymuchadmireBennett's workin trying to breakdown thoseassumptions. At thesame time,I would nevertheless with agree thatthe argument about readerresponseor audience StephenHeath's insistence responseveryrapidlysettledinto a kind of unacceptablebinaryoppositionbetfixed "textinitself" ween,on theone hand,themagically and,on theother hand,as different readers have as texts. Heath was to you many quite right pointout that a pseudo-position. thiswas really Once one looks at theformations within which indiviudals are constituted as readersor viewers thenthepurely voluntaristic gates are thrownopen. inshifting case is useful oftextual Bennett's accentupon thecalculation effects and so on. But at thesame time,he sometimes pushesthatto thepointwhereit would seemmysteriously what effects thetextwas likely to have in unpredictable and certain situations. It is at thispointthatI would wantto disagree withBennett are constituted, within whichreadings there is more say that,giventheformations than some kindof pure reception would have us believe. predictability theory You havesuggested thatfeminism todayperhapsthemostproducrepresents tivechallenge to thedominant becausefeminism transpublicsphere, particularly gresses the boundaries of the academy and takes its primary impulsefroma a range of political movement different groups aimed at countering embracing realsense, institutional is, in a very practices.You havealso arguedthatfeminism or perhapsthatmarxism is inseparable marxism, from from feminism, inseparable because bothspeak fromthemargins tradiprecisely of history, froma different tion,and because bothengagein a critique of power thatis at once practicaland theoretical. and giventhemarginality Giventhepartially sexisthistory ofmarxism, and marxism, in relationto marxist wheredo you see feminism of bothfeminism criticism today?
97
Let mefirst biton thefeminism and thepublicsphere idea. I expandjusta little meanbythatnotonlythatfeminism is radicaland does relatebeyondtheacademy to a movement, a widermovement, and indeedtakesitsimpulsefrom it.ButwhatI mean by the public spheremoreparticularly is not just the public arena or, as it as such(whichis a broaderdefinition ofpublicsphere), butrather were,publicness that area, that space, in which what we mightcall politics and culturecome It is as partoftheclassicalbourgeoispublicspherethatmediations exist together. between thepublicrealm, ortherealmofinstitutions, and forms ofsubjectivity that have theirrootin thedomestic which forms new of world, generates subjectivity. These are,in Habermas'sphrase,"publically-oriented" and then pass overintothe male-dominated to attainself-reflective formulation. Itwould be very publicsphere to tracethechanging relations between thepublicsphere, thedomestic interesting sphere,and the state-particularlyfor us as culturalworkers,because culture seemsto be thevitalpointof mediation Ifone looks at between publicand private. in feminism I that an then what mean it set contemporary light, by being emergent of elements towards a couter-public becomes clear. It is concerned with sphere relationsbetween experiencesor meaningsformedin the problemsof utility, as does the privatesphere and those formedin the political arena. Feminism, classicalpublicsphere, inpolitical and it ofsubjectivity terms graspstheseproblems does put an important in thesenseoflanguage,experience, emphasisupon culture and so on as partof a very form of it.So feminism is one of a number of necessary elements,one of the most importantof elements,as one can already see in ofa possible thatcontributes to thecreation RaymondWilliams'term "emergent," counter-public sphere. The problem withtalking about feminism and marxism is thatintheEuropean context there is often, at least,a certain that feminism and marxism, or assumption feminism and socialism, in some way belongtogether. For all thereal theoretical and political differences, theyinhabitan area on the left.They have common interests whatever theformal thatlinksthem. What little workI've done in history thatarea, mybook on Richardsonparticularly, reallycomes out of thatkindof whichis thenobviouslyverydifferent from what in Britain perspective, began as radical feminism I form feminism mean that of that no more "radicalfeminism." By sees any particular address to of class than do necessity many questions struggle otherforms ofpolitics. WhatI would hope foris somekindofconvergence between marxistsand feminists which would not be a mutual appropriation, but which would be workedoutwithin thesphere ofpoliticalactivity, thatis,within therealm of trying to construct a counter-public sphere.And as so oftenwiththeoretical such practicewould seem to allow forsuch questionsand politicaldifferences, One reasonfeminism to socialism,and to traditional clarification. is so important inparticular, is thatsocialismmustbe notonlya handing forms overofpower,but also a translation ofthevery ofpower.Anykindofmarxism or socialism meaning that stops beforethat point, as in the post-capitalist bureaucraciesof Eastern
98
Martin/Patrice Andrew Petro
and disabled. I don't thinkit is a questionof Europe, would be sorelydistorted to as of so-calledpartalk forms ceasing altoghter, happens in certainfamiliar or feminist ofa socialist kind)becauseparticipatory (whether ticipatory democracy democracyis a formof power just like any otherformof power. The task is to ofpoweritself--even to thepointwherewe could now,within changethemeaning our present discourse ofpower,be able to recognize or identify whatmight pass for power in that kind of society.I thinkthat is the real goal and to that extent ifI might from a marxist of feminism, speak honestly position,is a close reminder thatrevolution within therevolution whichsignals whatis still to be done: itsignals the extentto which even productive political and strategic conceptsare stillin kind kind the of the of with thatfeminism complicity powerstructure, rationality, is ultimately out to destroy. All of thatforme is itsmajorimportance. And whatI have triedto do in the book on Richardsonwas less to writea criticalstudyof Richardsonthan to indicatea way in which feminism, a certainkind of postand materialism could come together withoutmutualappropriastructuralism, tion.I believethatis possible.But I also believethatit is fearsomely in the difficult actual politicalarena, giventhe necessary mutual and vigilences suspicionsthat now existbetween socialistmenand women.On theotherhand,one way inwhich ifonlyat thetheoretical thesedifficulties is byshowing, be negotiated level, might that something can be done whichis not simplyan appropriation, and thathas been fearedby feminists. quite rightly In the conclusionto Literary you seem to broaden thestructuralist Theory, concernwith decentering the subject by callingfora radical decentering of the criticism. To this a bit to the seem objectof literary phrase you differently, suggest need to redefine theconceptof literature in such a way as to trangress prevailing boundaries.Could you elaborateupon what you thinktheeffects disciplinary of such a decentering would be, bothin theacademic institution and, at leastpotentially,in thepublic sphere? I think it is difficult to talkabout thisnow because ofthereal,practical, short termproblemsinvolvedin any radical transformation of the academy.Certainly thisis so in Britain, in launching whereone always feelsa sense of incongruity ambitiousradicalperspectives when what one is reallyworriedabout is people's thesavagecutsin funding, and so on. Butthere jobs, cutsinthestudent population, are different in can that different situation, waysyou ways.I have even go strategic heardit seriously in on a thatwhat by colleagueofmine Britain, suggested theleft, we oughtto do is defendthe conceptof highliterature to the death againstthe I ofThatcher. thattype ofthinking. And,ofcourse,one can understand philistinism think thatis thewrongapproachneverthless ofThatchbecause thephenomenon or itsequivalentin theUnitedStates,is so challenging erism, that,as radicals,we
99
have to tryto thinkit through to theend in orderto have thekindof visionand it. I don't difficult theshort term to oppose however think, are, energy negotiations thatyoucan really form ofclass society withanything lessthan oppose thatvirulent what you ulitmately desire. That is why I thinkthereis a point now, if only in trying to workoutwhatitis we would wantin theendbecausethat strategically, for And would provideus witha setofguidelines whatwe aredoingat themoment. I thinkthat it does have to be a deconstrction Where I find of the institution. deconstructive mostuseful is in itsapproachto thequestionoftransformthought written modern I am struck institutions. by very bythemanifesto, presumably ing International de for the founded Derrida newly Philosophie. Collkge Jacques of the academy, the marginalization Whatever the politicaldifficulties, whatever toward a deconstructed Derrida and his colleaguesreallydo seemto be working of boundaries,not onlybetween institution where,as it were,the transgression would be built different subjectareas but betweenacademic and social practices, I think to intothewhole institution. thatwe have to find some kindof equivalent of the work towardin theuniversities thatdoes in the end mean thereplacement current ofintellectual thatexamines division labourbysomeorganized conception in whichthey interms theeffects ofall forms ofdiscourse ofthepowercontext now because of theenormous exist.That will mean some new kindof rhetoric, simply of thosesignifying importance processes.It seemsto me thatin a post-Gramscian era of bourgeois societythereis no way to ignorethe centralrole played by in thereproto theunconscious, symbolic advertising processesof all kinds,from duction of bourgeoispower. Curiously,in one sense the radical critiquenow invlovedin thecultural fieldis a modestand marginal presence-and in a certain in ofcertain the But what is at that is stake, end,is theunlocking way appropriate. construction ofnew of and the unconscious forms very very powerful, signification thatwhat to go withthem. Thereis a sense,then, ofidentity and thesubjects forms a very we are trying to do now, ifin a besiegedand defensive way, is prefiguring on the future. One should put that quite sharply:withoutthe fight important thatwe are goingto be able to unlock it is unlikely culturaland ideologicalfront confront us. someofthoselethalarmedstruggles thatnow politically and critically 1985 Copyright AndrewMartin & PatricePetro

Interview With Terry Eagleton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interview With Terry Eagleton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interview with Terry Eagleton Author(s): Andrew Martin, Patrice Petro and Terry Eagleton Reviewed work(s): Source:

WithTerry Interview Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview with Terry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview withTerry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview with Terry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview withTerry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview with Terry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview withTerry Eagleton

Andrew Martin/Patrice Petro

An Interview withTerry Eagleton

Martin/Patrice Andrew Petro

An Interview with Terry Eagleton

You might also like