The Illusions of Postmodernism

Professor Eagleton takes no prisoners in this thorough albeit short critique on the theories of postmodernism. Focus is placed on postmodernism's general theories in relation to philosophy and political theory as opposed to postmodernism's contribution in the arts and architecture. This, in fact, could well be the subject of an entirely new book, however, aesthetics, in this case, is not Eagleton's main concern. It probably should be stressed that a general knowledge of philosophy, postmodern theory and political science would be advantageous before cracking this text, however, someone with only a slight awareness of these subjects could push through the book (dictionary in hand) without too much difficulty. By definition, post modernism is hard to define, as it claims no foundational tenets: it is more a method or perspective against established ideas in philosophy. As Eagleton writes, "It is animated by the critical spirit, and rarely brings to bear upon its own propositions." (P.26) From a socio-political standpoint, postmodern theories are part of a culture of "unmaking". It can be characterized as a rejection of all "metanarratives" or "grandnarratives"; a protest of modernisms inclusion into the established order of the `canon', a snubbing of intellectual elites, a blurring between high and low art, where Bart Simpson sits comfortably with Shakespeare. I would characterize it as a cynical "anti" position on just about any idea that claims validity or application in society. The key principles of all postmodern theories include: "...decreation, disintergration, deconstruction, decentrement, displacement, difference, discontinuity, disappearance, demoralization and delegitimation." (Post Modern Theory, Best, Kellner, 1991) In one respect, Eagleton applauds postmodernism's huge body of work over a short time, and its stubborn demystification of natural institutions and conventions, though, criticises its blatant lack of self-criticism and ability to offer any alternatives after its deconstruction of all other theories. There is a certain feeling of excitement and freedom after reading such postmodern luminaries as Derrida, Lyotard or Kristiva, but after wading through their dense and at times "cult-like" prose, one is left with the feeling of utter nihilism, realising that these theories are empty rhetoric, that over three thousand years of human progress was all a lie, a "grand-narrative" to keep us chained. For the most part Eagleton criticises postmodern theory against the theories of Marxism and socialism, and does a remarkable job revealing postmodernism's na?ve, almost adolescent view of the present world situation. He concludes that postmodern end-of-history thinking gives us no future other than the present. That there are many possible futures, including fascism: how would postmodern theory shape to such a future? In my opinion, not too well. This book is a valid discussion and a persuasive argument on the many pitfalls o

Despite "a reader's" review of the work below, Eagleton is, as usual, clear and convincing in his argument. "A reader" has made the mistake to come to a book entitled "The illusions of postmodernism" to find advice about sexual orientation. The lack of answers has nothing to do with Eagleton, but with the questioner. I mean, I have questions about the hard drive on my computer, but I wouldn't go to Eagleton for answers. As for the absence of gays, minorities, and women in Eagleton's texts, one must be familiar with Marxist theory to understand how he approaches the issue. To a Marxist, these are merely artificial divisions created by ideology meant to separate women and men from one another. Thus, they ought not to be confronted as separate entities, but as members of a class. With the breakdown of the classes comes the breakdown of the petty differences perpetuated by the bourgeoisie. Confronting and even fixing issues of ethnicity, sexism, sexual orientation, etc, only puts a band aid on real problem: economic and political inequality. Reading "a reader's" review one would think that Eagleton's work is solely about white, middle class, men. It's not. In this case, it is about a cultural movement (not sociological distinctions), and thus, Eagleton writes about the artists, artistry, and theorists that engage the movement, including women, minorities and gays. But, I guess if Eagleton doesn't reduce his work to labeling every person about whom he writes a "minority" then it doesn't count for some. Don't make the mistake of assuming every person mentioned without a cheap qualifier is a white, straight, male. Concerning Jameson, Eagleton has been very clear in all of his texts that Jameson is the premier Marxist in the west, so I don't know of the rivalry that "a reader" has conjectured between the two. Writing that Jameson has "said it all, in terms of Marxism" is utterly naive however. Jameson is brilliant, but such a comment disregards the revolutionary work of Aijaz Ahmad, Chidi Amuta, Teresa Ebert, Antonio Negri & Michael Hardt, Pierre Macherey, Julia Kristeva, and a litany of other Marxist theorists who have defined the field in recent years. No woman or man, no matter how influential, can "say it all" within a philosophy as complex and infinite as Marxism, something about which "a reader" has no apparent knowledge.

This is not a scholarly work (few footnotes), but it does make scholarly demands.The reader needs to know a lot about postmodernism and Marxism before picking it up , because Eagleton doesn't fill in the background. In short, the book does not serve as a primer. Still, pomo is a big subject and this is a slender volume, so a lot gets left out. Individual thinkers like Derrida, Kristeva, Lyotard and the usual suspects, are replaced by a popular view or what Eagleton calls the "sensibility of postmodernism as a whole." (p.viii). This amounts to a corporate image, a synthesis of the movement as a whole -- but is the synthesis really a straw man, a travesty of the real thing? On that, the reader will have to judge for herself; in any case fidelity to the originators is really not the point. Eagleton is not interested in what these thinkers precisely think or say. Instead, he's interested in what people believe pomo says, and just as importantly, in the kind of society that popularizes a pomo sensibility. His aim, therefore, is more about society and politics than which thinker said what and when. This is consistent with his Marxism, which is not much interested in where an idea comes from, but instead how it affects where society is going. But, given the eclipse of international socialism, who cares what Marx or socialists say. Even postmodernism, Marxism's quandom successor, celebrates the god of the free market; so who cares. Well, as Eagleton points out, capitalism triumphant is an exploitative mess that is not likely (not certainly) to get better; thus, there remains a clear need for principles embracing collective solutions to collective problems. Still and all, pomo earned its reputation by taking apart those grand ideas that Enlightenment thinkers, including Marx, needed for traction -- concepts such as universals, reason, humanism, et. al. The core of the book are the chapters where Eagleton shows how these modernist pillars still hold together despite attacks from pomo's deconstruction wing. How successfully he does this is again up to the reader to decide. In my view, he's pretty effective, especially when showing up pomo's political sterility. At times, however, I wasn't sure whether he was arguing that such pivotal concepts as universals and essences are really real or merely indispensible. Politically, I suppose the question comes to the same thing. Anyhow, this is a worthwhile book for those who are looking for a learned Marxist reply to the postmodern challenge and are willing to put up with the vagaries of an allusive style.

Let me begin by confessing a bias--I positively love Terry Eagleton as a critic and writer. His _Intro to Literary Theory_ is amazingly lucid and influenced me a great deal.I was first exposed to PoMo while working on an MA in German Studies @ Rice University. It was a subject I had never before confronted in my undergrad years. I walked into my first Intro to PoMo class a naive optimist and humanist and naive beliver in the Enlightenment tradition. Needless to say I was thrown for a heavy loop...PoMo utterly overwhelmed me, scrambled my brains, and in no small measure derailed my MA thesis for at least a year, trying to wrap my mind around this difficult subject. I felt a gut-level dislike of J.F. Lyotard and an immediate affinity for J. Habermas. Among PoMo writers, I felt most attracted to F. Jameson, who, of whom, of course, we got the least coverage in my class. In many ways, Eagleton picks up where Jameson leaves off. Both are conscientious Marxist theorists who offer a welcome critque of PoMo from a Leftist perspective that I can embrace as opposed to the usual gamut of Right-Wing/Conservative PoMo bashing ala Alan Bloom, et. al. that I only partially can stomach and tends to leave me cold. In defense of PoMo's positive aspects, I highly recommend the writings of US Professors Michael Berube and Cary Nelson.But Eagleton is a mint...a unabashed socialist from Britain, a true cultural heir of Orwell, I think...He and fellow Briton Christopher Norris both offer solid, fair critques of PoMo free of Rightist blather.Eagleton gives the best of PoMo its due, but also takes it to task time and time again, often quite humorously with intellectual irony.I recall reading _Teach Yourself Postmodernism_ and enjoying its solid critques of the failings of (classical) Modernism, but then it wandered off into advanced PoMo and I found myself dismayed, watching my sympthies dry up and evaporate as the elucidation of PoMo drifted from Modernist critque to positive assertions about PoMo that struck me as so wrong-headed. Eagleton points out in detail and says more eloquently than I could muster, just what is "wrong w/ PoMo"... (Norris does an equally fine job, too, i might add). Eagleton in a number of ways reminds me of Noam Chomsky's response to PoMo. But whereas Chomsky is utterly dismissive of PoMo, Eagleton at least engages it forwardly, gives it a fair hearing.Anyhow...This latest book by Terry Eagleton, it has much to recommend it. Enjoy!-JJR

Eagleton debunks some of the central tenets of PoMo thinking in order to re-claim rationality, enlightened critique, the human subject, history and epistemology for left-wing critical theory. PoMo has, for too long, held students and university professors captive and this book argues that the "death-dealing" beliefs that they peddle are well-founded nor necessary. READ IT!!!