for egleton literature is the domain through which social groups excercise and maintain power over others.. discussi know the lines told by...

Power, in Foucault, is that of knowledge; how knowledge is
disseminated and circulated through a culture is the means by which a power dynamic
comes to exist. Knowledge, here, is not necessarily information, nor, for that matter,
is it necessarily true. Rather, knowledge, in Foucault, is the way in which individuals
think, what it is acceptable and appropriate to think, how thinking manifests itself
both individually and in the larger cultural structure. The power structure of knowledge
is carried out not from top to bottom, but is rather a dynamic continuum – it is, in
effect, the social system. Or in slightly other words, social systems
are power dynamics.

In Marxism, the
Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) is the means by which this power structure perpetuates
itself. The educational system (public, private, secondary, university, etc.) is one
example. Eagleton’s views on literature as a means of disseminating power are similar to
the way in which feminist and multicultural critics approach the cannon: it is comprised
primarily of white males or, in other words, those who already have power and those who
seek to maintain that power. All of this occurs at a mostly unconscious level and, more
importantly, as a system. That is, there is not a “the man” at the
top exerting influence and making decisions; it is a design, but it is not designed.
(cont.)

In feminist thought, it is the system of patriarchy
which “exercises and maintains” power. In multicultural studies, it is the white/racist
system. In postcolonial studies, it is the imperialist (or post-imperialist) system. In
Marxism, it is the capitalist system. They each deal with power from a particular angle,
but the all agree that power is “exercised and maintained” through certain vehicles,
including literature.

As part of the societal ideology,
literature, in Marxism, is part of the superstructure. In “Marxism and Literary
Criticism,” Eagleton writes that understanding literature “means understanding the total
social process to which it is part.” He goes on to say, “Literary works are not
mysteriously inspired, or explicable simply in terms of their author’s psychology. They
are forms of perception, particular ways of seeing the world; and as such they have a
relation to the dominant way of seeing the world which is the ‘social mentality’ or
ideology of an age” (528). Furthermore, it is not enough to look at societal ideology by
itself, rather, the literary critic must also look at the greater
context of that ideology, including the “definite, historically relative structure of
perception which underpins the power of a particular social class” (529). This context
is not simply a reflection of a particular class, either, but rather a “complex
phenomenon” that includes myriad points of view, even worldviews, within a particular
social structure (529).

Literature
Cited

Eagleton, Terry. "Marxism and Literary Criticism."
Criticism: Major Statements, eds. Charles Kaplan and William Davis
Anderson, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000. 525-543.