Interview With Terry Eagleton

7/28/2019 Interview With Terry Eagleton

1/18

Interview with Terry EagletonAuthor(s): Andrew Martin, Patrice Petro and Terry EagletonReviewed work(s):Source: Social Text, No. 13/14 (Winter - Spring, 1986), pp. 83-99Published by: Duke University PressStable 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 [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466200?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466200?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/18

InterviewWithTerry agletonANDREW MARTIN/PATRICE PETRO

Asone f he oremostarxistiteraryriticsnd longstandingorrespondingditorofthisournal, erryagleton eedsno introductionere. hefollowingnterviewwith imwas donebyAndrew artin nd Patrice etro ndpublishedna campuspublicationalledThe IowaJournalfLiterarytudies. oth he nterviewersndourselveshoughttdeserved wider eadership.I wonder fwemight eginbydiscussinghemilieunwhichyoudeveloped s

an intellectualnd critic. erhapsyoucould also tellus a bitaboutyourrelation-shipwithRaymondWilliams,incehisworking-class ackgroundndexperiencesat Cambridge eeminmanywayssimilar o yourown.I came from alfordwhich s nearManchesterndmygrandparentsad comeover tothemill ownsof Lancashire s a partof thegreat rishmigration. uringtheDepression heymoved nto he ities ndeventuallyndedup nSalford. o myparentswere first eneration nglish, lthough tillwitha strong rishculturalbackground.My fatherwas an engineering orker nwhat was then he argest

engineering orks n thecountry.Itwas highly nusual nthosedaysfor omeoneto come from hatkindof abackground, romwhatwas then grammarchool, oCambridge. went heren1961 and was, I suppose,thoroughlyraumatized y it culturallyn a way notdissimilar o theexperiencesfRaymondWilliams. n thosedays Cambridgewasevenmore isibly bastion or pper-classulturehan t stoday.Therewas a smallpercentage fworking-classtudents,tudentswho wereverymuchonthedefen-sive,verymuchof an enclave.Political ctivity as obviously newayout. At thetime twould have beenmainly heearlynucleardisarmamentmovement,ome-thing became nvolvedwith.Therewas also a LabourClub,althought was runlargely y x-public choolmarxists-Etonianmarxists!-and so a certainmountofinterestingriction xistedbetween, s itwere,thegenuine prols" and thosewho had goneover to their ide.I metWilliamswhile was anundergraduate. e had come toCambridge s aFellow of JesusCollege the same year I did and he seemedto me, as I firstencountered im n ectures,obetheonlymember fthefacultyobetalking nysortof language I could recognize.He was, to be precise,simplydiscussingliteraturena way found t oncevery ifficultnd unaccustomedo andyetwhichseemedto plug ntowhat felt knew.So, when graduatedfromCambridgen83

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

84 AndrewMartin/Patriceetro1964,Williams nvitedme to becomea ResearchFellow athiscollege ndI taughttherewithhimuntil1969 when left or Oxford.

That was a verynterestingeriodbecause it meant hat livedthroughhevariouspoliticaldevelopmentsf the1960sreally ctively, orkingwithWilliamsand witha number f students uch as StephenHeath and ColinMacCabe, forinstance,who have sincebecomewell-known. utI think neproblemwas thatWilliams,whileenormouslynfluentialn mydevelopment-and I thinkhewasthe inglemost mportantntellectual,olitical, ndinmanywaysmoral nfluenceon me at the time-had himselfhad a curious career. He had been in adulteducation ndcome n fromhat otheuniversityairlyate;he was actually ffereda Fellowship n the basis of his Culture nd Society.He never eally djustedtoacademia,however,nd therewas a momentnthe ate1960s whenhehad aroundhima groupof radical socialist tudents nd criticswhowould haveverymuchliked to organize ome kind of interventionnto theCambridge nglishFaculty,hadhegiven heword. But think he ronywas thatWilliamshimself ad hadtolearn o work ndependentlynd hewas, na certain ense, roperly eary fwhathad happenedto Scrutiny. hereseemedthepossibilityhat a similar ituation,although ertainlymorepolitical, ould haveoccurred gainand Williamsdid notwant o be nvolvednthat.The variouspeoplearoundhim henmoved ff ootherplaces,mainly hered-brickr newuniversitiesnBritain. movedto Oxford n1969,partly ecause stillpreservedmuchof thepathological ntipathyo Cam-bridge,which had felt rom heoutset, ndpartly ecause,havingworked n atremendouslyroductive aywithWilliams, wanted osee how couldrun hingsonmyown. Itwas also becoming learthat heCambridge nglish acultywouldnotin factgiveme a lectureship hich, nthosedaysat least,was necessary orfinancial easons. As a Fellow of theCollegeI did someteaching ut was not aLecturer). artoftheir efusalwas, I think, n indirect ttackagainstWilliamshimself,s Iwas identifiedithhim.He wastoopowerfulnd nfluentialfigureobedirectlyssaulted, lthough neortwo ofhiscolleagues ndstudents erenot.In a curiousway,thatwas an earlierversion f the ater ituationknown s the"MacCabe Affair," lthough t neverreached uch dramatic roportions.

Until bout 1968 or1969,youwere learly ngagedwith uestions riginallyraisedbyWilliamsnCulture ndSocietyndTheLongRevolution.nthe ate60sand early70s,however, oushifted ourconcerns owardsdevelopments ithinFrench heory.Wouldyouexplainthis hiftnterms fcontemporaryoliticalorsocial events?Lookingback atthe ime t felt implyikemoving rom nebodyoftheoryo

another, lthough necan see now thepoliticaldeterminantsfthatmove.As thepolitical cenewas quickeningnEuropeand theUnited tates, nd as new bodies



4/18

An nterview ith erry agleton 85oftheoryweredeveloping,herewas a younger enerationfsocialists, fwhichwas one,who thenfelt hat heoldernew eft, f whichWilliamswas a prototype,was neitherufficientlyheoreticallyigorous or ufficientlyoliticallyngaged.thinkmyown movement owards marxismdatesfrom hatperiod.Certainlydon'tthinkwould have calledmyselfmarxistwhen firstameuptoCambridge,but clearlywouldhaveby hemiddle olate60s. Inan interestingay, think hatifone looksatthewholetrajectory, hathappened s that number fusmovedintowhatwe tookto be a more igorousndinsomewaysmorepoliticallyelevantformof theory nd, from hatperspective,t looked as thoughWilliamswasstanding till, r perhapsevenregressing.ut it is dangerous o thinkyou havepreempted,r got beyondWilliamsbecausehehas a curiousknackof,by appa-rentlytandingtill, ctually olding position, rat east omeversion f t,whichyouendup endorsing.Andit s interestingfone looks at thewaythetheory fpoliticshasdeveloped ince hen: ntoforms f French rAlthusserian arxismnthe ate60s andearly 0s andthen utagain nthevery hanged onditions fthelater70s. Williamswas in a senseprefiguring,n much of hiswork,thekindsofpositions nd forms f allegiance hatpeoplemightnow find hemselves ith.would notwant,however imply o negate hesortofcritique fWilliams'workthat wrote nCriticismnd Ideology. think hat lotofthat ritique, heoreti-cally peaking, till tands.Butwhat did notseethen, nd what havecometoseesince becauseofdeveloping onditions,t s not a matter f theoretical ifferencewithWilliams utrathergreement ith hepolitical orce fhiswork:hisattitudetowards hecritic's ole ntheacademy,hisattitude bout what iteraryriticismshouldbe,and evenhisstance owards ultural tudies nd theneed to transgressinterdisciplinaryoundaries.Allof thatwas strikinglyresentnWilliams'work,at least nembryonicorm, rom he outset.And t sthoseelements fWilliams'work thatpeoplelikemyselfrenowreturningounderdifferentonditions,ndthey rereallymore mportanthan thekindsoftheoretical r doctrinal istinc-tions hatwe hadpreviously.would ust dd,as a final ote, hatWilliams imself,ofcourse,hasn't ctually tood still ince he60s either.Williams s much loser omarxism owthanhe everwas, apartfrom hevery rief,ndnotvery ortunate,periodof hisactivemembershipntheCommunist arty s a student. think hatWilliams'work s,so to speak, ffectivelyndobjectivelymarxistwork,whateverlabel we might trategicallyse for hat.

Your valorization f Williams'work neverthelesseems to me surprising,since,as you have indeednoted,Williamsworks n isolationfromnotonlytheacademybut also fromwhat mightpotentially evelop into a counter-publicsphere.How, then, s he able to be as politically ffectives yousuggest?It s a strong artofWilliams' mage, hat uality f solation.There sa sense



5/18

86 AndrewMartin/Patriceetroinwhichhehas been kind f minence rise nthe eftnBritain,nd argelywithvery ositive ffectslthough fcoursewith omeverynegative nes as well. Butwhat I realizenow,morestronglyhan did before,s thatWilliams s himselfawareofhis own isolation ndactuallymakesthis lear n his nterview ithNewLeftReview n Politics nd Letters.His own isolation sverymuch heeffectfacounter-publicphere, s itwere, ailingocome nto xistence. was struck ythewayhetalked, nvery istanciatingerms, bouthis earlierwork nCulture ndSocietybecausehe dentifiedhepoliticalmoment,hehistoricalmoment,s beingforhimvery egative.Whatthenhappened, s the1960s and1970sdrewon,wastheemergence f new politicaldevelopmentsn which Williams was involved.Certainly he resurgence f the new left round thepeace movement nd thevariouskindsof nterventionsuring heperiodof theLabourgovernmentfthe1960s werepartof this.And eventodayWilliamshas played n activepart ntheorganization n Britain alled the"Socialists' Society,"which s an attempt oorganize ntellectuals fvariouskinds nd to puttheirworkat the service fthetradeunion movement nd the Labour movement enerally. o he has had thathistory f involvement,ut think hat at the same timethe senseofthe earlierdissociation emained ndproved omethinghathe could never ruly etbeyond.Yet I thinkt s nterestingoputtheproblem otonly, s itwere,psychologically,but also interms fthe failure ftheemergencefthematerial onditionswhichcould have made Williams n even more nfluentialigurehan he has been.Itsounds ikePolitics nd Letters ontainsmany evelationsoryou, n pite fthefactthatyouworkedvery loselywith Williamsduring hoseyears.

Yes,partofWilliams'political solation, nd his solationnthe cademy,wasthe result fwhat we might olitely all a rather ivilized renigmatic iscourse.And indeedtherewereways took thison inmy ritique fhim nCriticismndIdeology,ways inwhichhisvery tyle fdiscoursewas related o that solation.That is, somebodywho is speaking, nd for longtimewas forced o speak,alanguage hatwas notpopular,which ouldeasilybemisinterpretedndwhatwasalso,tosomedegree, language f elf-protection.amthereforetruck y hewaythatofall hiswork,Politics nd Letters stheone inwhichhe is themost andid,where nthe ompany fcomrades, o tospeak,he talked penly bout hiscareer.One otherpointaboutWilliamswhich s relevant s that think t s a mistake osearch, s manypeoplehavedone,for heprivateman behind hepublicpersona,becauseWilliamshasalwaysbeen omeonewho sees his ifenhistorical ermsndinoften uitedistanciating ays. f herere osses nthat rproblems, roblems faccountability,here ave also been somegains.Williamshasbeenable to solveornegotiate ertain roblems imself yseeing hem s historical ecessities-whilenever ncebeingfatalistic. ne of theothermportant hings bouthiswork as a



6/18

An nterviewith erryagleton 87whole, lthoughtoften asa steely ealism bout t, s thathe has never uccumbedtothevarious ides ffashionable ost-marxistessimism, hichfromime otimedrift round our societies.

An nterestinghingboutWilliamss his ttractionorAmerican ulture. uttheres a tensionn hisviewofAmerica s atoncean ideal and at the ame time s acertain oliticalreality, articularly is-a-vis ritain.Yes, Williamshas been notableforhis ability o rememberheprogressivemomentswithin he mostnegative f cultures r bodies of thought.After ll,Culture nd Societywas, amongother hings,he record fa highlyonservativelineofthoughtromwhich, y omefeat fdialectics,Williamswas able toabstracta positivemoment.He has alwayshad that ntellectual nd politicalbreadth fvision nd, nterms fhisresponse oAmerican ulture,tmarkshim ff rom,ay,the Frankfurtchool,wheretheassumption f a muchmore one-sided ttitudetowardcontemporaryapitalist ulture s prevalent. ometimes thinkWilliamshas been seen as over-charitablen thatrespect, ometimesmovingclose to aleft-liberalism.ut thenhe also has beenfromhevery tart genuinely ialecticalthinker, ith genuinely ialiectical ast to hisworkwhichhas alwayssought ostart,s Brecht asput t,from hebadnewthings ather han hegoodoldthings.The conceptofthe"disinterested"ntellectuals everpresentnthecontem-porary academy,at once an ideal, a standardto be met,but also a way ofmaintainingn atomizeduniversitytructure. ou tracethisposition n LiteraryTheoryback to the Victorian man of letters."Whydo you think his dealcontinues o havesuchforce n thepresent-daycademy?I think hatnotions fdisinterestednessegin o crop up inthe18thcenturywithwhatJiurgenabermascalls theemergence f thebourgeoispublicsphere,andwhat sstrikingboutthatdisinterestednesss itsobvious nterestedness.hatis to say,onlythosewho have an "interest" an be disinterested,nlythosewho

have a stake ntheculture,who arepropertied, ave a title o enternto certain"disinterested" orm fdiscourse; hewhole discourse f theEnlightenment,orexample. o whatone s ooking t nthatwholehistoryecomesvisible s a highlyelitist nd exclusionist lass formation-although ertainlynewhich, ikemanyclass formations,eeds to cast its anguage nuniversal erms. he role ofdisin-terestednesss mostforcefullynderstood oday n terms f thathistory.Whathappenswith hegrowth f thecommodificationf iterature, hichwas takingplace throughouthe 18thcentury,s thatthere s now a sense,because of theexistence fthetextorwritings a commodity,nwhich iteratures inprincipleavailable to everybody-whateverheactual restrictionsfsocial access to litera-ture ndpower.Nonetheless,hecommodificationf iteratureandthis gain s a



7/18

88 AndrewMartin/Patriceetroreversion o a dialecticalpositionheld byWilliams) actually iberates iteraryproductionfrom very pecific angeof interestedinstitutions--theourt andorganizedreligion, orexample-when it was a partof thepreviousfeudalist,absolutist poch,only oabandon ttothemarket lace. Ironically,hen, ndbyastrikingontradiction,hevery ossibilityfdisinterestednesss a critical oncept,as an intellectual osture, ependsupon a sortofpromiscuous vailability f theliteraryommodity. nybodyscapableof udgingt, ny gentleman" hat s. Thissituationtself,nturn,s an effectfcommodity roduction.fone looks at thehistoryn thatway, thenone sees wheretheso-called disinterestedntellectualcomesfrom.What 'vetried o do inmy ecturesnd nThe Function fCriticismstogoon to trace hedestinyfthe onceptnto he 9th enturyndbeyond. thinkthat thegreatcrisis, he crisis roundMatthewArnold,forexample, s, amongother hings,hat t becomes mplausible ither o believe hatyoucan transcendsectional nd social interestsbecausethe conflicts etween hose nterests aveintensified)r to believe that there s any longera total body of social andintellectual nowledge n which ntellectualsanget fix, s itwere, ranscenden-tally. t seemsto me that one of theproblemsthatdoggedthe institutionfcriticism,nd no doubt a plurality f intellectual reas, is thateitheryou tryfruitlesslyo reproduce hatroleof the disinterestedntellectual,nall its variousliberalhumanist uises, ryou candidly ecognize hat herole s nowhistoricallydevaluated,t spast, ndyoutry nddo somethinglse.Theproblems thatwhatthat somethinglse" is tends ither obea kind fcravenwayfor riticism,kindoftechnocracy, specialized, rofessionalizedechnocracy hichhas abandonedanyhopeofspeakingmorerelavantlyo a society eyond he cademy, r,as withthe eft, ou try ndwork out someotherkindofset of functionsor riticism.don't think riticism as solved hatproblem et ndas long s itdoesn'tfollow hepathof the eft, think t is actually tructurallyncapableofdoingso.

The role of the "disinterested"ntellectualeems to have takenon a newfunctionuring he oldwar,orperhapsmoreproperly, uring heMcCarthy ra,whenDaniel Bell,Arthurchlesingerndotherswere ollinghe endof deology"and attemptingoconstructheuniversitys an apparently alue-freenstitution-one thatrepresentedo particularnterestrpointofview,but nstead he"vitalcenter.

And then n the1960's, with the arrivalof a moreheterogeneous odyofstudentswithinthe academies,came the breakdownof a common academiclanguagesharedbetween tudents nd the academiccommunity-thatwas thepointwhen he nterestednessfcertain pparentlyisinterestedcademicianswasdramaticallyxposed. t was also a period nwhich hecomplicityfthe cademywithmilitaryiolence,withdestructiveechnologies, ith hewar nVietnam,was



8/18

An nterviewith erryagleton 89clearto everybody. think hat his s thecrisiswhichwe have nherited,nd thatliterary heory,n itscontemporaryeanings, prings ut ofthatperiod. Theorydoesn'tsimply appenat anytime n thehistoryf a discipline. thappenswhen,for whateverhistoricalreasons,there s a need for thatdiscipline o becomeself-reflexive:hen, or xample, ts raditionalationales ave broken own and itneeds someotherrationale-when it needs to establishdistancefrom tself.f tdoes that, s it had done in literary heoryn the 1960s and since, f t becomesself-reflexivend no longer akesforgranted rangeof routinized ssets butinsomeway estrangeshem, hen t can have oneoftwofunctions. n theonehand,theory an simplyreconfirmhose practices,givingthem an even more solidfoundation. I think ome of the ratherde-guttedmitations f marxism ndstructuralismnd otherfancy renchproducts hatfound hereway intoBritainand the United States have been precisely way of doing thisby givingnewinjections f ntellectualapitalto a clapped-outndustry). lternatively,oucanraise the heoreticaluestion na waythatwillestrangehoseroutinized racticesto thepointofchanginghem.Herewe aretalkingess about theYale School andmoreperhapsaboutBertolt recht.

Currentlyheres a move nthe cademy oreturn o certain ootsofGermantheory-althoughnot the tradition fBrecht r theFrankfurtchool,but to thetraditionfhermeneuticsariouslyssoicatedwithHusserl,Heidegger,Gadamer,and, f tbecomesmarxist, abermas.Givenyour wnreferenceoHabermas,wewere wondering whether you believe that hermeneutics-a marxisthermeneutics--canesolve he double bindofcriticism ouhave described?As a preliminaryootnote ere, s webegin o talk bout German nd Frenchtraditions,think hat t s nterestingnd somewhatronic hat heonly ole eft oAnglo-Americanocietiesmay be to serveas the meetingpoint of those twouncommunicatingraditions. incetheFrench nd theGermansdon'ttend o talkto eachother, henwemight avetoconduct hedialoguefor hem.Hermeneuticsisnot spopularoras discussednBritain s it s ntheUnited tates, o I amalwaysstruckwhen cometo theUS tofind hat t s around ndverymuchdiscussed ndbegin oponder hepolitical ontext oexplainwhy hismight e so. Some reasonsseemfairly lear.Hemeneutics,tgoeswithout aying, aisesquestions f funda-mentalmportancebout nterpretation.t s also thecase, however, hat here reforms f hermeneutics hichblendvery asilywith kindof mild cademic iberalhumanism n thiscountrywhich, n one sense,while apparently aising veryconceivable uestion nd beingvery nxiousto question-raise, ever eems o metoraise he uestionswhichreally urt,whichmaybeonepossibly ccurate eason

for herapid bsorption fcertain orms fhermeneuticsnto he cademy. thinkthatthere s a problem boutwhathermeneuticss. Obviously t wouldbe some-



9/18

90 AndrewMartin/Patriceetrothing f a category-mistakeosaythat, s marxist ritismsproduced,t s nfacthermeneuticsecause, t seems ome, fhermeneuticss a reflectionn interpreta-tion talso engages uestions ommon o a number fdifferentritical pproaches.It sthereforeronic hat ome cademics nd ntellectualso seem owanttomakeofhermeneutics,s itwere, third osition ranother osition, ne that an onlybe explained politicallyn terms f a rejection f (or a reaction o) such criticalpositions as marxism.Therfore, he firstquestion one has to raise to ahermeneuticist-andwe know that hey ovepeopleraising uestions o I'm suretheywouldn't be offended y this-is, what exact statusdo you thinkyourdiscoursehas?And I think neproblem s that t s a discourse f a high evel ofgenerality,aising ertain undamentalssues about the act ofinterpretationutstanding t a rather isablingdistancefrom pplying t in practicalways,bothtextuallyndpolitically. o raiseyet nother uestion: bviously ermeneuticsasbeenpoliticallynterrogated,ot least of all in the famousGadamer-Habermasconfrontation,nd has raisedquestionsof ideologyand of the unproblematicassumption f a traditionnwhichhermeneuticseems omplicitious. utbeyondthese uestions here sthequestion fthepolitics fhistory,hepolitical mplica-tions f andassumptionsn,for xample, herecoveryfthepastortherecoveryflost or semi-lostmeaning.That is to say, it seems to me thattherecovery rreconstructionf themeaning fpasttextshas to be a good deal morehistoricalandpolitical hanmostforms fhermeneuticsne comes across eemto believe.don't see why it sould be a paradigmforcultural tudies. In that sense theapparentlyneutralmethodology f hermeneutics, hich simply ays thatweshouldraisequestions bout themeaning f thepastand itsrelation o thepresent,canactuallyicense kind fprogram fcritical ctivity hich ontinuallywervesback to classicaltexts,which s continuallynterestedntherelationship etweenpast and present, utonlyconceivedof in a particularway.Now here 'd liketo make twopoints.First, here re,after ll,otherwaysofrelatinghepasttothepresenthan hemostfamiliar aysofhermeneutics.hereare themoredramatic nd violent ermeneuticsfWalterBenjamin,whose wholeconception ftherelationship etweenpast and present s morepolitical,moreapocalyptic, nd certainlymorehistoricallyrgent han muchofwhatone findscoming ut ofGermany ow.Second, lthoughmarxistsreofcourse oncernedoquestion herelation etween resentndpastmeaning, think ormarxists hesearequestions lwayssubordinated o another uestion-one that endsnot to beaskedbyhermeneutics-namely,hequestion f thefuture. here snoviewofthepresent rthepastformarxismor think or ther inds fviablepositions)whichisnot under he ign f a possibleordesirable uture.nonesense hatmy eemtobe a strangehingosaybecausequiteobviously hefuture,na materialense, oesnotexist.Butthenneither oes thepast.What mean s that nthemaking fsuchrelations etween astandfuture, ehavetocalculatewherewe aretryingoget o



10/18

An nterview ith erryagleton 91in thefirstlace. t s this uture-orientedimensionwhich findacking, otonly nhermeneuticalhinking,utinmanyforms onnected o it.

You have beentalkingbout a differentision fpastandpresentn terms fthefuture,nd thusraise thequestion ofwhatyoumeaninyourown workby"history"nd "tradition." orexample nCriticism nd Ideologyyouspeak, s amarxist, ffeeling cutely bereft fa tradition." o quote directly, ou saythatyoufeel, s a marxist,a tolerated omeguest fEurope, precocious utparasiticalien." In WalterBenjamin:Or Towards a Revolutionaryriticism,n theotherhand,you speak about a real distinction etweenhistorynd tradition,n theBenjaminian ense of thedifferenceetweenhistory, r the timeof therulingclasses, and tradition, r the timeof theoppressed nd exploited. Finally, nLiterary heory, ouseemtofulfillhepromise uggestedn Walter enjamin; hatis, there eems to emerge n yourworka certain radition fmarxist riticism.Couldyoucomment bitmore nyourviews fhistorynd traditionnd the laceof Literary heory nforging marxist radition?Now Iwould wantto ooka bit riticallyt someofthegeneralizationsmadeinCriticismnd Ideology,becauseoften was referringothe ndemic mpiricismand anti-intellectualismfBritish ulturewhichresisted he sortsof traditions

believe was- and still m-workingwithin. erhaps was not ufficientlywarethat was really nly peaking fthe raditionftheory,ndthat houldnever efor marxisthefirst rmajorwayof peaking ftradition. ut fter ll theres animportantnd mpressiveraditionfBritishocialism, fworking-classnd otherforms fmilitancynd twas,perhaps, art fthatmomentnthe 970s,part fmytakingdistance romWilliams, hat reallydidn'tdare take nthefullweight fthat. wasn't reallyraising hequestionofhow myown workrelated o thatindigenouspoliticaltraditionwhichmymarxism endedto underplay-and Iwould liketo correct hebalance.What wouldwantto sayabout tradition owfrom marxist ointofview showimportant concept t s.Perhaps his s more han tatingheobvious.Therewas, after ll, n thegreat xplosionofradicalthoughtndpractice n the1960sand,for ll itsfutility,valuableskepticismbout theverydea oftradition hichwas sometimesll that newas tryingobreakawayfrom. hus a kindofeternal"nowness"finds ater esonances, ot n the uphoric rhippie tyle, ut ncertainforms f contemporaryeft alk which seems to fetishizeomething alled the"present onjuncture,"nwhich, s itwere, verythingests n therollof thedice.Williams aid long ago, inCulture nd Society, think hat society hat an liveonly bycontemporaryesources s poor indeed.It is a structural ffect f latebourgeoissocieties hattheymustrepresshistory, ecause theymustsuppressalternative orms fhistory. lso their istoryends o be thehistoryf the ame,



11/18

92 AndrewMartin/Patriceetrotendsto be the eternal eturn f thecommoditynwhatever ashionably ariedguise hat eturns.o thefirstointwouldsimply e to underline hevitalnature ftheconceptoftradition or marxists. We marxists," rotsky nce said, "havealways ived ntradition." hisofcourse s not to signal he uncritical r subser-vient relations f traditionwhichone finds, haracteristically,n conservativethinking. think, es,Benjamin'sdistinctionetweenhistory,meaning supposeruling lass history,nd tradition r an alternativeort of histories,was veryimportantomebecause tmade omesenseofwhat thinks a problemwithin heBritish eft,where there has been over the past ten or fifteen earsa lot ofworking-class,abour, nd now feminististory,lotofwork nalternativeistorylargely temmingrom heHistoryWorkshopmovement. ow, one of the criti-cismsmadeofthatmovements that ne can fall nto he rap f eeing radition,fseeing ocialist r radicaltradition,imply s an alternativen thesense of somesuppressed utunbroken lternativeontinuity hich, s itwere, ghosts"officialhistory. enjamin'sown thinking bout tradition, bout the resources f theoppressed, s a way ofbreakingwith that model. His traditions much ess analternativehostly istory, hich ould be blocked utwhole and entireas I thinksome abourhistoriansndsomefeminististoriansend othink); athert sa setof, fyou ike, riseswithin istorytself: setofpoints fconfrontation,fruptureorconflict, hereyoucansee theoutline fan alternative ithout aving oparrotit. His traditions,then, he ssemblage fthosemoments hich realwaysforhimreassembled nd reconstructedccordingto the demands of thepresent on-juncture. o I wantto comeback to the"present onjuncture" utthroughhatdifferenterspective.

On yet notherrelated ubject,we wantedto ask youabout yourviewofrhetoric,gain drawing ponyourviews n Walter enjaminnd Literaryheory.In Walter enjamin, ou equaterhetoric ithdeconstructionnd,with eferencesto de Man,arguethatrhetoric as retreatedrom olitics nd socialpractice ndbecome demystifierf deology hat tself roves he"final deologicalrationaleforpolitical nertia." n Literary heory, ycontrast, ou explicitly ppropriaterhetoric orthepurposesofpoliticalcriticism nd an entirely ifferentindofdiscursiveractice.Wouldyoucomment ponthese wodifferentiews frhetoricinyourrecentwork?I think heapparentdisparity merges rom he fact hat here re differentmeanings frhetoricnd, ndeed, heterm snowcertainlyp forpoliticalgrabs.Rhetoric s the site of struggle ather han a receiveddefinition. he rhetoricaltraditiontselfsa setofquitevaried raditions nd what wastryingopinpointntheBenjamin ook was reallywo, think,uitepoliticallyncompatible otions f

rhetoric. ne istheuse of the erm o ndicate iscourse spower ndperformance



12/18

An nterview ith erry agleton 93and therefores alwaysconjunctural,s always nscribedwithin nstitutions.heothermeaning frhetoric,inceNietzsche nd identifiednits atestformwithdeMan, views discourse s theplayoftropes nd calls intoquestionnotonlythepossibilityfmeaningtself ut ndeed thepossibilityfpractice.That is to say,behind hatNietzscheannsistence,hatNietzscheanmpulse nherited ymanycontemporaryeconstructionists,iesa skepticismbout thevery oherence,bouttheveryfoundedness f theconceptofpracticewhich cannotbutbe political.Again,thisskepticismeemsto me a coded response o, or a polemic against,materialistheories fpractice.Now it clearly sn't ourpointto stand,as somemarxisms avedone,on a concept f concrete racticewhich hen s seentosolveall theproblems.Clearly,practice s as difficult,mbiguous, nd many-sidedsanythinglse. I think hat one has to understandheimpulsebehindthat neo-Nietzschean ttempto deconstructracticewhich,were tsuccessful, ouldspellthedeathofanyeffectiveocial transformation.fwhat s being aid is simplykind oftherapeuticnterrogationfcertain ver-simple,ather etishized otionsofpractice,hen thinkhatmarxistsndother adicals an earnfrom econstruc-tion.But don't hinkhat his s what sbeing aid. believe hat ne must eturnoa theory frhetoricwhich,whilenot for moment uppressingheproblems fover-simplificationrambiguity,everthelessegins rom graspof thefact hatrhetorics indeed he nexus betweendiscourse nd power.

In yourown workyou are interestedn theformaldevicesofliterature,rwhatwemight erm cultural roduction,"nd also with heways nwhich hesedevices reactivatednreception,rwhatwemight all "cultural onsumption."Does your nterestn reception iffer-and ifso, inwhatways-from whathasrecently een ratherbroadlytermed reception heory"?And how would yourespond o those ttempts,s representedytheworkof TonyBennett nd othermarxist ritics, o redirect eception heoryn a moreradical,morepoliticallyrelevant irection?It maybe interestingo see reception heory,ike all othercontemporaryliteraryractices,gainas having ts rootsback in the 1960s. Whatwe arereallysayings that eaders emandparticipation,ust swithin hat limate emands ordemocratic articipationfvariouskindswereclearly ery trong.notherwordsit spart, ndinprinciple greaterhanusualpart, fthedethronedmythologyfliterature.t would be interestingo tracethedevelopmentfthattheorynthevarious nstitutionalhanges, emands, ndprogramswhich re characteristicfthe1960s.Atthe ametime, nehastosaythatmuch tandard uropeanreceptiontheory, nd Americanreception heory orthatmatter, as been criticized orpositing readerwho is,very ften,merely function fcontemporaryeading

formationsndnota function fthewholepolitical ystems well.We arenever



13/18

94 AndrewMartin/Patriceetrosimplyn thefirstlacereaders.Nor can weput magicallynto uspension herestof our existencewhenwe approacha text.There s a dangerof a kindof left-academicismhere, hichwouldseem opresume hat he lassroom,fyou ike, stheonlyplace inwhichmeanings re constructed. ndthatobviouslyhas to bechallenged. he otherproblem nrelation o the workofleft eceptionheories,whichyouhave touchedupon inyour question, s indeedtheemphasis n con-sumptionwhich an,from ime otime, eadto a kindof carnival fconsumerismor a fetishismf the mmediate eading onjuncture. his canbe justas narrowlyde-historicizedn itsownwayas the more tandard orms fbourgeois riticism.We arealwaysmore hanthecurrenteading onjuncture.t s partly matter fhow farwe extend the word "reception."Now a lot of the epistemologicalproblems aised nthoseargumentsreperhapsnearing kindofsolution, r atleastconsensus. orexample, think hemeaning fthe hrase thetextn tself" snowone thatmost fus wouldreject.t sclearly ssentialistic.think hat here reequallycertainforms f voluntarismf reading nd interpretation,pparentlybasedona pluralityf nterpretations,hichmost f us wouldalso wanttoreject.So theres a certain mount f commongroundhere oo. But after hose xplora-tions reover, nemust till eturn o what s at stakeformarxists:heownership,orat eastcontrol f, hemeans fcultural roduction. hatbringshefocus o animportantroblemnbeing noppositional ritic.nonesense,workingwithinheacademy s anoppositional ritic ouarealways ndanger fbeingmerelyeactivetoculturalwork, rcultural henomena, roduced lsewhere. hat sstructuralothe academy,howevermuchyou may rightlyalkof certainkindsof culturalproductionwithin he cademy-and suchtalk smorewidely one ntheUnitedStates han t s inEurope.Then there s thequestion fwhen,we takea film extanddemystifyt, rwhenwetake literaryext nddo anideological nalysis f t,ofwhether hatwearedoing smore alid.That s tosay,whether uchunmaskingcan reveal certaindominantmeanings o as to prevent hemfrom nteringhegeneral nconscious nchallenged.hat task ssomethingital, think,which nehastodefend, ut t the ametime thas tsbuilt-inimits nd a radical riticannotinthe nd be content ith t.Wehaveto betalkingbouttheproductionfculturalmeanings, otonly n terms f rtifacts ut ntermsfother orms fproductionfculturalmeanings. his s the ong-range erspective. onetheless, eing noppos-itionalcriticdoes not simplymeansomebodywho is in someway involved nacademia. It does not, n the first lace,meansomebodywho takes thealreadyfashioned roduct ndsubmitstto a certain eading, owever ecessaryhatmaybe at themoment.

How would you respond, hough, o the workrepresented yBennett ndothers, nd particularlyo their rgument hatmarxism houldn'tbe concernedwith uestions f estheticsraesthetic alue?Bennettays,for xample, hat the



14/18

An nterview ith erryagleton 95object ofmarxist riticisms not thatof producing n aesthetic, frevealing hetruth bout an already re-establishediterature,utthat f nterveningithin hesocial processesofreading nd writing."

I think hatonce one begins o arguewithTonyBennett,nce one begins ounpackthemeaning fa phrase ike"thesocialprocesses freading ndwriting,"then ne wouldprobably ind neselfworkingwith hekinds f ssueswhichhavebeentraditionallynown s aesthetics.fTonyBennettpellshisposition ut moreclearly rgives s a littlemore xemplaryrconcrete ractice,hen think he ortsof questionsor responsive evices and textural perations nd effects hat onewould find neselfwith n a properly oliticalcontext-and that s thevaluablepoint of it-add up to what people reallymean when theyuse the category"aesthetic." n otherwords, think here sa dangernBennett's ork, nd nworkofthatkind, f mplicitlyubscribingo a bourgeoisnotion faesthetics ndthenproperlyefusingt.Just s I thinkhere s a dangern muchdeconstructivehinkingof mplicitlyubscribingoutterlyntenablemetaphysical otions ftruth,fart,orpresence rground nd then, fcourse,piouslygoingon to deconstructhem.Obviously, ne couldplaythatgamefor longtime.Buttheterm aesthetic" s,likemany uchterms,oo valuableto be surrenderedotheoppositionwithoutstruggle.t s not nough or marxistriticosay, llright, ouhaveyour estheticdiscoursesndyoucankeepthem,we'regoing odo somethinglse: call tpolitics,call t nterventionnsocialprocesses r whatever. irst fall, don'tthink hat heword "aesthetic" s thatsimple.Veryoften n hiswork,TonyBennett endstoequate theaestheticwitha certainfoundingmomentn thehistory fGermanthought, erman dealism o be precise, nd then aysquiteproperlyhat his sclearly ntenable nd so we wantto do somethinglse. But theword"aesthetic"seemsto me a muchmore ndeterminatend flexibleword thanthat, ne whichreally ries o analyze he pecificityfwhatevert s that sgoingon whenpeoplesay,as they end o,that hey rerespondingo a workofart,rather han ayingthey redigginghegarden rtaking ride na bus. t demarcates certain ind fsocialpractice.Now ofcoursewe know, nd hereBennett ndI are nagreement,that heboundaries fthe ocialpractice rehistoricallyhiftingn the xtreme. fcoursewewanttoreject ssentialisticotions faesthetics,uttheword aestheticcovers multitudefareasandresponses ndthose, think,annotbe abandoned.It wouldhavebeen nconceivableo someone ikeBrecht osay,well,I'mnotreallyconcernedwith he esthetic alueofmy layorpoem,what wasreally oncernedwithwaswhethertwaspoliticallyffective.o which he imple nswerwould be:well, f twas boring, edious, nd badlydone,how on earth ould ithavebeenpolitically ffective? hose two questionsforBrecht, f the political and theaesthetic,implywould not havebeen so disassociated. ytheaesthetic ewouldhavemeant omethingike heproductionfcertain inds fdramatic ndtextural



15/18

96 AndrewMartin/Patriceetroeffects hichmade thepolitical ontent f thework cceptable,nteresting,xcit-ing, and thought-provokingo particular udiences.So with thatmeaningofaesthetic think ne is talking rom properlyeftist ointof view.

One assumption s thatyou can culturallyr politically ctivatetexts hatwouldotherwise ereceivedn n apparently alue-freer"disinterested"ashion.With ther eft eceptionheorists,uchas PeterBiirger, owever, he ssumptionisthat adicalmeaningsrealwayspreemptedyconservativenstitutions.o, inasense,Bennett'sworkrepresentsn attempt o breakwith certain efeatismrincorporationistiewoftexts nd institutions.I think ou're ight. nd do think here sa wayofusing eft eceptionheoryto counter hemostdefeatistorms f ncorporationistrgumentsecause, s youpointout,they urreptitiouslyssumethat here s a standard r fixedmeaning rvalueto the nstitutionr the ext. verymuch dmireBennett'swork ntryingobreakdownthose ssumptions. t the ametime, would neverthelessgreewithStephenHeath's insistence hattheargumentbout readerresponse r audienceresponsevery apidly ettled ntoa kind ofunacceptablebinary ppositionbet-ween,on the nehand, hemagically ixed text n tself"nd,onthe ther and, smanydifferenteaders s youhavetexts.Heath was quiteright opointout that

thiswas really pseudo-position. nce one looksat theformations ithinwhichindiviudals reconstituteds readers rviewers hen hepurely oluntaristicatesare thrown pen.Bennett'sase s usefulnshiftingccentuponthe alculation ftextual ffectsand so on. Butat the sametime,he sometimes ushesthat o thepointwhere twould seemmysteriouslynpredictable hat effectshetextwas likely o have ncertain ituations.t sat thispoint hat would wanttodisagreewithBennettndsaythat, iven heformations ithinwhichreadings reconstituted,here smorepredictabilityhan somekindofpurereception heorywould haveus believe.Youhavesuggestedhat eminism epresentsodayperhaps hemostproduc-tive hallenge o thedominant ublic phere, articularlyecausefeminismrans-gressesthe boundariesof the academyand takes its primarympulse frompoliticalmovementmbracing ifferentroupsaimedat countering rangeofinstitutionalractices.You have also arguedthat eminisms, na very ealsense,inseparable rommarxism,rperhaps hatmarxisms nseparable rom eminism,precisely ecausebothspeakfrom hemargins fhistory,rom differentradi-tion, nd because bothengage n a critique fpowerthat s at oncepractical ndtheoretical. iven he artiallyexisthistory fmarxism,ndgiven hemarginalityofbothfeminismndmarxism,wheredo youseefeminismn relation omarxistcriticismoday?



16/18

An nterviewith erry agleton 97Let mefirstxpand ust little itonthefeminismndthepublic pheredea. Imeanbythatnotonly hatfeminismsradicalanddoes relate eyond he cademy

toa movement,widermovement,ndindeed akes ts mpulse romt.Butwhatmeanbythepublicspheremoreparticularlys not ustthepublicarenaor, as itwere,publicness s such which sa broaderdefinitionfpublic phere), utratherthat area, that space, in which what we might all politicsand culture ometogether.t s as partoftheclassicalbourgeois ublic phere hatmediations xistbetween hepublicrealm, rtherealm f nstitutions,nd formsf ubjectivityhathavetheir oot nthe domesticworld,whichgenerates ewforms fsubjectivity.Theseare, nHabermas'sphrase, publically-oriented"ndthen assover nto hemale-dominatedublic phere o attain elf-reflectiveormulation.twouldbeveryinterestingotrace he hanging elations etween hepublic phere, hedomesticsphere, nd the state-particularly orus as culturalworkers,because cultureseems o be thevitalpoint fmediation etween ublic ndprivate.fone looks atcontemporaryeminismnthat ight,henwhat meanby tbeing n emergentetof elements owards a couter-publicpherebecomes clear. It is concernedwithproblemsof utility, elationsbetweenexperiences r meaningsformed n theprivate phereand those formed n thepoliticalarena. Feminism, s does theclassicalpublic phere, rasps hese roblems f ubjectivitynpolitical ermsnd tdoesputan importantmphasis ponculturenthe enseof anguage, xperience,and so on as partof a very ecessary orm f t.So feminisms one ofa number felements, ne of the most important f elements, s one can alreadysee inRaymondWilliams' erm emergent,"hat ontributesothe reation fa possiblecounter-publicphere.Theproblemwith alkingbout feminismnd marxisms that ntheEuropeancontext heresoften,t east, certain ssumptionhatfeminismndmarxism,rfeminismnd socialism insomewaybelongtogether. orall the realtheoreticaland politicaldifferences,hey nhabitan area on the left.Theyhave commoninterests hateverheformal istoryhat inks hem.What ittlework 'vedone nthatarea,mybook on Richardsonparticularly,eally omes out of thatkindofperspective, hich s thenobviously ery ifferentromwhat n Britain eganas"radicalfeminism."yradicalfeminismmean hat ormffeminismhatno moresees any particular ecessityo addressquestions f class strugglehan do manyother orms fpolitics.What wouldhopeforssomekind fconvergenceetweenmarxists nd feminists hich would not be a mutualappropriation, ut whichwouldbe worked utwithin he phere fpolitical ctivity,hat s,withinherealmoftryingo construct counter-publicphere.And as so oftenwiththeoreticalquestionsand politicaldifferences,uchpracticewould seem to allow for uchclarification.ne reasonfeminisms so importantosocialism, ndtotraditionalformsnparticular,s that ocialismmust enotonly handing verofpower,butalso a translation ftheverymeaning fpower.Anykindofmarxism rsocialismthatstops before hatpoint,as in thepost-capitalist ureaucracies f Eastern



17/18

98 AndrewMartin/PatriceetroEurope,would be sorelydistortednd disabled. don'tthink tis a questionofceasingto talk altoghter,s happens n certainfamiliar orms f so-calledpar-ticipatory emocracywhetherf a socialist r feministind)becauseparticipatorydemocracys a form fpower ust likeanyotherform fpower.The taskis tochange hemeaning fpower tself--evenothepointwherewecouldnow,withinourpresent iscourse fpower,beabletorecognize r dentifyhatmight assforpower in thatkindof society. think hat s thereal goal and to that extentfeminism,f mightpeak honestly rom marxist osition,s a close reminder fthat evolution ithin herevolution hich ignalswhat s still o be done: t ignalstheextent o which evenproductive oliticaland strategic oncepts re still ncomplicity ith hekindofrationality,hekindofpowerstructure,hatfeminismisultimatelyuttodestroy. llof thatforme s itsmajor mportance. ndwhathave tried o do in the book on Richardsonwas lessto write critical tudy fRichardson hanto indicate way in whichfeminism, certainkindof post-structuralism,nd materialismould come togetherwithoutmutualappropria-tion. believe hat spossible.But also believe hat t sfearsomelyifficultntheactual politicalarena,giventhenecessary igilences nd mutual uspicions hatnow existbetween ocialistmen nd women.On theotherhand, neway nwhichthesedifficulties ight enegotiatedsbyshowing,fonly t thetheoreticalevel,thatsomethingan be donewhich s not simply n appropriation,nd that hasquite rightlyeenfearedbyfeminists.

In theconclusion o Literary heory,youseemto broaden the tructuralistconcernwithdecenteringhesubject by callingfora radicaldecenteringf theobjectof iteraryriticism. o phrase his bitdifferently,ouseemtosuggest heneedto redefineheconcept f iteraturen such a wayas to trangressrevailingdisciplinary oundaries.Could youelaborateuponwhatyouthink heeffects fsucha decentering ouldbe,both n the cademic nstitutionnd,at leastpoten-tially,n thepublicsphere?I thinkt sdifficulto talk about thisnowbecauseofthereal,practical, hortterm roblemsnvolved n anyradical transformationf theacademy.Certainlythis s so in Britain,whereone always feels senseof incongruityn launchingambitious adicalperspectives henwhat one is reallyworried bout s people'sjobs,cuts n the tudent opulation, he avagecuts nfunding,ndsoon.Buttherearedifferentays youcango inthat ituation, ifferenttrategic ays. have evenheard tseriouslyuggestednthe eft, ya colleagueof mine nBritain,hatwhatwe oughtto do is defend heconceptofhigh iteratureo the deathagainstthephilistinismfThatcher.And,ofcourse, ne can understandhat ype f hinking.think hat sthewrong pproachneverthlessecausethephenomenon fThatch-erism, r itsequivalentntheUnited tates, s so challenginghat, s radicals,we



18/18

An nterview ith erryagleton 99have to try o think tthrougho theendin order o havethekind ofvisionandenergyooppose t. don'tthink, owever ifficulthe hort erm egotiationsre,thatyoucanreally pposethat irulent orm fclasssocietywith nythingessthanwhat you ulitmately esire.That is whyI think here s a pointnow, if onlystrategically,ntryingo workoutwhat t swe would want n the nd becausethatwouldprovide swith setofguidelines orwhatwearedoing t themoment.AndI think hat t does have to be a deconstrctionf the institution.Where finddeconstructivehoughtmostuseful sin ts pproach o thequestion ftransform-ingmodernnstitutions.amvery truck ythemanifesto,resumably rittenyJacques Derrida for the newlyfoundedCollkgeInternational e Philosophie.Whatever hepoliticaldifficulties,hatever hemarginalizationf theacademy,Derrida and hiscolleaguesreallydo seemto be working oward a deconstructedinstitution here, s itwere,thetransgressionfboundaries,not onlybetweendifferentubject reasbut between cademic and social practices,would be builtintothewhole nstitution.think hatwe havetofind omekindofequivalent owork toward ntheuniversitieshatdoes inthe end meanthereplacementfthecurrent ivision f ntellectualabourby omeorganized onceptionhat xaminesthe ffectsf ll forms fdiscoursenterms f hepower ontextnwhich hey owexist.That willmean somenew kindofrhetoric,imply ecauseof theenormousimportance fthose ignifyingrocesses. tseems o me that na post-Gramscianera of bourgeois societythere s no way to ignorethe centralrole playedbysymbolic rocesses fall kinds, rom dvertisingo theunconscious,ntherepro-duction of bourgeoispower. Curiously, n one sense the radical critiquenowinvloved nthe cultural ield s a modest ndmarginal resence-and ina certainwaythat s appropriate. utwhat s atstake, ntheend, s theunlocking f certainvery owerful, ery nconscious orms f ignificationnd the onstructionfnewforms f dentitynd the ubjects ogowith hem. here sa sense, hen, hatwhatwe aretryingo do now, f na besieged nd defensive ay, s prefiguringveryimportant uture.One shouldput thatquite sharply:without hefight n thecultural nd ideologicalfrontt s unlikelyhatwe aregoing obe able to unlocksome of hose ethal rmed truggleshatnowpoliticallyndcriticallyonfront s.

Copyright 985AndrewMartin&PatricePetro

Documents

Interview With Terry Eagleton