Q: How can literature “does not exist” according to Terry Eagleton?

A: Eagleton argues that literature does not exist as an objective category, but rather as a social
and historical construct that changes over time and across cultures. He claims that there is no
essential quality that makes a text literary, but rather that different texts are considered literary
by different groups of people for different reasons. He also challenges the idea that literature is
a form of expression or reflection of reality, and instead shows how literature is shaped by
various ideologies, discourses, and power relations.

In simple terms, Eagleton is saying that literature is not a fixed or natural thing, but a flexible and
artificial one. He is saying that what we call literature today may not be called literature
tomorrow, or what we call literature in one place may not be called literature in another place.
He is saying that literature is not just a matter of personal taste or preference, but a matter of
social and historical context. He is saying that literature is not just a way of saying something
about the world, but a way of making sense of the world according to certain assumptions and
values

Q: What is the meaning of power relations?

A: In simple terms, power relations are relationships in which one person has more control or
influence over another person and can make them do what they want. For example, a teacher
has power over a student, a boss has power over an employee, or a parent has power over a
child. Power relations can affect how people communicate and behave towards each other.

Q: Why does literary theory a “non-subject” according to Eagleton?

A: According to Terry Eagleton, literary theory is a non-subject because it is not a coherent

discipline with a clear object of study or a set of agreed methods. He argues that literary theory
is a collection of diverse and sometimes contradictory approaches that challenge the traditional
assumptions and values of literary criticism. He also suggests that literary theory is a product of
historical and social conditions, and that it reflects the interests and ideologies of different
groups and movements. Eagleton is a Marxist critic who advocates for a political and historical
analysis of literature, and he criticizes some forms of literary theory for being abstract, elitist, or
irrelevant to the real world

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  'The conclusion is that the literary theory we have
examined is political.'

A: In this book, he examines different approaches to literature, such as formalism, structuralism,

Marxism, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism, and feminism. He argues that these approaches
are not just academic exercises, but also reflect different political and ideological positions. He
claims that literary theory is political because it involves questions of power, value, meaning,
and representation.
In simple terms, Eagleton’s conclusion means that the way we study and interpret literature is
influenced by our social and historical context, and that we cannot separate literature from the
broader issues and conflicts that shape our world. He suggests that literary theory can help us
to understand and critique these issues and conflicts, and to challenge the dominant or
oppressive views that may be hidden or naturalized in literature.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “The impotence of liberal humanism is a

symptom of its essentially contradictory relationship to modern capitalism.”

A: Liberal humanism is a way of thinking that values individual freedom, democracy and human
rights, but it does not pay much attention to the larger social and economic forces that shape
our lives. Modern capitalism is a system that exploits people and resources for profit, and it
creates a lot of inequality and injustice. Terry Eagleton thinks that liberal humanism is powerless
to challenge or change modern capitalism, because it is actually part of it. He thinks that liberal
humanism is a kind of ideology, which means a set of ideas that justify and support the existing
power relations1. He also thinks that liberal humanism is limited and out of touch with reality2.
He wants literature and literary criticism to be more aware of the political and historical context
of their production and reception

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton: :”Literary studies, in other words, are a question
of the signifier, not of the signified.”

A: In that sentence, Eagleton is using some terms from structuralism and semiotics, which are
fields of study that analyze how language and signs work. A signifier is the word or sound or
image that we use to represent something, such as “cat” or “meow” or a picture of a cat. A
signified is the concept or idea that the signifier refers to, such as the animal cat or the sound
that cats make. For example, in the word “cat”, the letters c-a-t are the signifier and the furry
creature with whiskers is the signified.

Eagleton is saying that literary studies are more concerned with the signifier than the signified,
which means that they focus more on how language and signs are used to create meaning and
effects in texts, rather than on what those texts are actually about or what they represent. For
example, a literary critic might analyze how a poem uses rhyme, rhythm, imagery and
metaphors to create a certain mood or tone, rather than just summarizing what the poem says
or what it is about.

/
Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “Literary criticism selects, processes, corrects
and rewrites texts in accordance with certain institutionalized norms of the 'literary' -
norms which are at any given time arguable, and always historically variable.”

A: He says that people who study and write about literature have some rules or standards for
what counts as good literature. These rules are not fixed or universal, but can change
depending on the time and place. People who study and write about literature also change the
texts they read and write according to these rules.
Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  "It is the power of policing writing itself,
classifying it into the 'literary' and 'nonliterary', the enduringly great and the ephemerally
popular.”

A: One of the powers of literary theory is to control how we read and write texts, by dividing
them into categories like ‘literary’ and ‘non-literary’, or ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture. He argues that
these categories are not natural or objective, but rather reflect the interests and values of certain
groups in society. He suggests that literary theory can help us to challenge these categories and
to understand how they are related to issues like class, gender, race, and ideology.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “It is an illusion first in the sense that literary
theory, as I hope to have shown, is really no more than a branch of social ideologies,
utterly without any unity or identity which would adequately distinguish it from
philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cultural and sociological thought; and secondly in
the sense that the one hope it has of distinguishing itself - clinging to an object named
literature - is misplaced.”

Terry Eagleton thinks that literary theory is not a real thing. He thinks that it is just a part of other
ideas that people have about society and culture.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “My own view is that it is most useful to see
'literature' as a name which people give from time to time for different reasons to certain
kinds of writing within a whole field of what Michel Foucault has called 'discursive
practices', and the if anything is to be an object of study it is this whole field of practices
rather than just those sometimes rather obscurely labeled 'literature'.”

He thinks that the word ‘literature’ is not a fixed or clear-cut category, but rather a name that
people use for different kinds of writing at different times and for different reasons. He also
thinks that literature is part of a larger field of ‘discursive practices’, which means ways of using
language to communicate, create meaning, and shape reality3. He says that if we want to study
literature, we should study this whole field of discursive practices, not just the ones that are
sometimes called ‘literature’ without much explanation. He suggests that this way of studying
literature is more useful and more political than other approaches

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “It is, in fact, probably the oldest form of 'literary
criticism' in the world, known as rhetoric.”

He is interested in how literature and language can be used to persuade, influence, or

manipulate people. This is what he means by rhetoric, which he defines as “the art of using
language effectively” 

According to Eagleton, rhetoric is not a new or modern invention, but a very old and ancient
one. He says that rhetoric is probably the oldest form of literary criticism in the world, because it
is concerned with how language works and what effects it has on the audience. He suggests
that rhetoric was originally developed by people like the ancient Greeks and Romans, who used
it for political and legal purposes, such as making speeches or arguments 
In simple terms, Eagleton’s statement means that rhetoric is the study of how language can be
powerful and persuasive, and that this study has been going on for a very long time, since the
beginnings of literature and civilization. He implies that rhetoric is still relevant and important
today, because we still use language to communicate and influence others in various ways.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “All theory and knowledge, as I have argued
previously, is 'interested', in the sense that you can always ask why one should bother to
develop it in the first place. One striking weakness of most formalist and structuralist
criticism is that it is unable to answer this question.”

Eagleton believes that all theory and knowledge is influenced by political and social factors. He
thinks that you can always ask why someone develops a certain theory or knowledge, and what
their purpose or interest is. He criticizes some types of literary criticism, such as formalism and
structuralism, which focus on the form and structure of texts without considering their historical
and cultural contexts. He thinks that these types of criticism are unable to explain why they are
important or useful.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  “The liberal humanist response, however, is not
weak because it believes that literature can be transformative. It is weak because it
usually grossly overestimates this transformative power, considers it in isolation from
any determining social context, and can formulate what it means by a 'better person' only
in the most narrow and abstract of terms.”

A: Eagleton disagrees with the liberal humanist view, which is a common way of looking at
literature that focuses on how it can make people better or more human. He thinks that this view
is too naive and ignores the social and historical factors that shape literature and people. He
also thinks that this view has a vague and narrow idea of what a ‘better person’ means.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  Liberal humanism is a suburban moral ideology,

limited in practice to largely interpersonal matters.

A: Liberal-humanism is a way of thinking about literature that focuses on the individual, the
human nature, and the moral values of the texts. Eagleton thinks that this approach is too
narrow and ignores the larger historical, political and cultural contexts that shape and influence
literature. He also thinks that liberal-humanism is a kind of ideology that reflects the interests
and values of the middle-class suburban society, and that it only deals with personal issues
rather than social problems. He wants to expose the hidden connections between literature and
power, and to show how literature can be used to criticize and transform the existing order of
things

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  The idea that there are 'non-political' forms of
criticism is simply a myth which furthers certain political uses of literature all the more
effectively.
Ideology, for Eagleton, is "the link or nexus between discourses and power", meaning the way
that language and ideas are used to justify and maintain certain social structures and relations.
He claims that some forms of criticism pretend to be neutral or objective, but in fact they serve
certain political purposes by hiding or ignoring the ideological aspects of literature.

To put it in simple terms, Eagleton’s statement means that every way of reading or analyzing
literature has some political agenda or effect, whether it is obvious or not. He thinks that some
critics are dishonest or unaware of their own political biases, while others are more open and
honest about them. He wants us to be aware of how literature and criticism are connected to
power and society, and how they can challenge or reinforce the status quo.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  There is no way of settling the question of which
politics is preferable in literary critical terms. You simply have to argue about politics. It
is not a question of debating whether 'literature' should be related to 'history' or not: it is
a question of different readings of history itself.

Eagleton is arguing that there is no neutral or objective way of judging the political implications
of different literary approaches. He claims that literary theory is always connected to a certain
view of history and society, and that one cannot decide which theory is better or worse without
engaging in political debate. He also challenges the idea that literature can be separated from
history, or that history can be understood without interpretation

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  I argued earlier that any attempt to define the
study of literature in terms of either its method or its object is bound to fail. But we have
now begun to discuss another way of conceiving what distinguishes one kind of
discourse from another, which is neither ontological or methodological but strategic.
This means asking first not what the object is or how we should approach it, but why we
should want to engage with it in the first place.

Terry Eagleton said before that trying to define literature by what it is about or how we study it
will not work. But he also suggested another way of thinking about what makes one kind of
writing different from another, which is not based on what it is or how we do it, but why we do it.
This means we should start by asking not what the topic is or how we should analyze it, but why
we are interested in it at all.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  No theory or method, in any case, will have
merely one strategic use. They can be mobilized in a variety of different strategies for a
variety of ends. But not all methods will be equally amenable to particular ends.

 In simple terms, he is saying that different ways of studying and interpreting literature (theory or
method) can be used for different purposes and goals (strategies and ends). However, some
ways of studying literature may be more suitable or effective for certain purposes than others.
For example, if you want to analyze how a novel reflects the social and economic conditions of
its time, you may use a historical or Marxist method. But if you want to explore how a novel
plays with language and meaning, you may use a structuralist or poststructuralist method. There
is no one best method for all purposes, but some methods may have more advantages or
disadvantages depending on what you want to achieve.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  The present crisis in the field of literary studies is
at root a crisis in the definition of the subject itself.

He thinks that there is a problem or crisis in the field of literary studies, which is the academic
discipline that studies literature. The problem is that literary studies does not have a clear
definition of what literature is, what it does, and how it should be studied2. He also thinks that
literary studies should not be separated from other forms of cultural expression, such as art,
music, politics, religion, etc., because they are all related to each other. He wants literary
studies to be more open and critical of its own assumptions and methods.

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  Those who work in the field of cultural practices
are unlikely to mistake their activity as utterly central. Men and women do not live by
culture alone, the vast majority of them throughout history have been deprived of the
chance of living by it at all, and those few who are fortunate enough to live by it now are
able to do so because of the labour of those who do not. Any cultural or critical theory
which does not begin from this single most important fact, and hold it steadily in mind in
its activities, is in my view unlikely
to be worth very much.

He believes that culture is not the most important thing in life. Many people in history did not
have a chance to enjoy culture because they were poor or oppressed. And some people who
enjoy culture today can do so because of the work of those who don’t. He thinks that any theory
or study of culture that ignores this fact is not very good or useful2. He wants us to remember
that culture is connected to politics and society, and that we should care about justice and
equality for everyone

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  The third area in question is the 'culture industry'.

Eagleton criticizes the way culture is used and abused by capitalism and mass media. One of
the topics he discusses is the “culture industry”, which is a term that refers to the production and
consumption of cultural goods and services that are designed to manipulate people’s tastes,
desires and emotions. He argues that the culture industry is a way of controlling and exploiting
people by making them passive and uncritical consumers of culture. He also questions the idea
that culture is something that belongs to a certain group or nation, and suggests that culture is
more diverse and complex than that. He tries to reclaim the value of culture as a way of
enriching our lives and transforming society for the better

Q: Explain this statement by Eagleton:  I shall end with an allegory. We know that the lion
is stronger than the lion-tamer, and so does the lion-tamer. The problem is that the lion
does not know it. It is not out of the question that the death of literature may help the lion
to awaken.
He says that we can think of literature as a lion and the people who study it as lion-tamers. The
lion is stronger than the lion-tamer, but the lion-tamer knows how to control it and make it do
what he wants. The lion-tamer also knows that the lion is stronger than him, but he doesn’t want
the lion to know that. The problem is that the lion doesn’t know its own strength and power. It is
possible that the death of literature, which means the loss of interest and respect for literature,
may help the lion to awaken, which means to realize its potential and importance.

Eagleton’s allegory suggests that literature is a powerful force that can challenge and change
the way we think and live, but it is often ignored or manipulated by those who study it. He hopes
that the death of literature may not be the end, but a new beginning for literature to become
more relevant and influential in our culture.