Burble Net - Essays "Terry Eagleton: Creating a Wholly Biased World"

Burble Net

Writing

Photography

Past Projects

Interact

Artists

Terry Eagleton: Creating a Wholly Biased World

If one were to take Terry Eagleton at his word when he says in the introduction to Literary Theory that “there is no possibility of a wholly disinterested statement” (13), then one could validly argue that no theory, even his own, has any objective value.  His statement removes from any human thought objective value.  If theories are formed from human logic, then they must be tainted with the cultural bias underlying that process, ant therefore cannot be objective.

Unless he was to live by himself without contact from any other human being, any man is subject to the influence of those around him.  Even the man untouched by the influence of other men is, himself, influenced by that same lack of humanity.  It is the amount and shape of human interactions that forms a culture, it is the exposure to the ideas and behaviors of individuals and cultures that forms personal bias, and it is this bias that removes from human thought the possibility of objectivity.

I take my definition of “objective” from Merriam-Webster OnLine: “being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers . . . expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.”  To take Eagleton’s own example, it would seem that the statement “This cathedral was built in 1612” (13), is objective according to Merriam-Webster: it gives us a “condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all viewers.”  It is a factual statement.  “Facts,” Eagleton argues, “are public and unimpeachable” (12-13).  Certainly, this fact fits the definition of “objective.”  But does the statement do so as well?  Eagleton would say, “No.”  “Statements of fact are after all statements, which presumes a number of questionable judgments: that those statements are worth making, . . . , that I am the sort of person entitled to make them . . .” (Eagleton, 13), etc.  According to Eagleton, then, statements are never “without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”; they are never objective.

Eagleton does not stop at statements; he removes from the filter of objectivity all human thought when he says “without particular interests we would have no knowledge at all, because we would not see the point of bothering to know anything” (14).  It is only man’s interests that spur his thought.  Therefore, any thought is objectively impure.  The consequence of this is that any human-made theory is laden with personal bias, because it is, by its nature of being human-made, formed in the context of individual interest.

How does this apply to Eagleton’s own theories?  To use his own reasoning on literature, his theories only have that significance which we as a culture and as individuals apply to it.  It is neither permanent nor comprehensive; its significance lies solely within the context in which it is perceived.  “There is . . . no such thing as a pure literary judgment or interpretation” (15), even Eagleton’s own, which is influenced by his interest in the philosophy of Karl Marx.  In fact, Eagleton’s critical theory is entirely inseparable from his Marxism: his view of literary communication as the tool for cultural influence and power is something wholly Marxist.  Though he attempts to create a comprehensively valuable literary theory which encompasses literary values across all times, places, and cultures, his own cultural bias negates this effect, even within the context of his own argument.

Works Cited

Eagleton, Terry. “Introduction: What is Literature?” Literary Theory. Julie Keenan. Course Materials, University of Maryland, Spring 2003.

“Objective” Merriam-Webster OnLine. 2003. Merriam-Webster. 5 March 2003 <http://www.m-w.com>.

top – discuss – essays