What do you think?
Rate this book
Ideology: An Introduction
Ideology has never before been so much in evidence as a fact and so little understood as a concept as it is today. In this now classic work, originally written for both newcomers to the topic and for those already familiar with the debate, Terry Eagleton unravels the many different definitions of ideology, and explores the concept’s torturous history from the Enlightenment to postmodernism.
The book provides lucid accounts of the thought of key Marxist thinkers, as well as of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud and the various post-structuralists. Now updated in the light of current theoretical debates, this essential text by one of our most important contemporary critics clarifies a notoriously confused subject.
Ideology is core reading for students and teachers of literature and politics.
The book provides lucid accounts of the thought of key Marxist thinkers, as well as of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud and the various post-structuralists. Now updated in the light of current theoretical debates, this essential text by one of our most important contemporary critics clarifies a notoriously confused subject.
Ideology is core reading for students and teachers of literature and politics.
268 pages, Paperback
First published May 16, 1988
101 people are currently reading
2599 people want to read
About the author
Terry Eagleton
163 books1,287 followersWidely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Terry Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
October 27, 2013
This review is a scab.
Terry Eagleton’s study of the history of ideology is the perfect primer for one setting out on an attempt at understanding this concept, which tends toward equivocal definitions, amorphous implications and contrasting origin theories. One of the successes of this book is how it encourages the reader/thinker to embrace a kind of precariousness, slipperiness and mutability when considering what ideology is, how it takes hold and works through society. It quickly becomes apparent that this elasticity of thought is necessary for a subject whose most committed and deepest thinkers have not even come to an agreement on what it means or what properties it holds or the effects it enacts or reflects. Eagleton traces the sundry theories, definitions, and workings of ideology from Antoine Destutt de Tracy (who first formulated the concept of a science of ideas while imprisoned during the Terror- so ideology was literally born amid revolution) through Marx and Engels, Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno, Bourdieu, Voloshinov, Sorel and others, as well as Schopenhauer, Hegel, Heidegger and Freud and even contemporaries such as Foucault and Žižek. This takes the form of a critique of the philosophy each propounds, seeking out the points where it either stands up to a deeper analysis or folds into contradictions with itself or other theories (often enough sliding into contradictions within the same philosophy). Eagleton asks questions more frequently than he comes to conclusions (as will I in the next few paragraphs), and encourages the reader/thinker not to hold a theory as inviolable.
If there is a general, broad “definition” for ideology Eagleton puts forth, it is something like a performative system of beliefs that determine how we live within the social structure, also referring to “the ways in which signs, meanings, and values help to reproduce a dominant social power; but it can also denote any significant conjuncture between discourse and political interests.” Ideology at its root stems from attempting through ideas to resolve certain contradictions in the social order (class, economic, power disparities, etc.) and the extent to which these ideas mythologize themselves into the way we as subjects live out our lives in the world in relation to either humanizing or dehumanizing power structures. It is also to some extent a simplifying system, one that reduces the complexity, plurality, and uniqueness of things into versions of ourselves and simulacra of our inculcated ideas. (I am already feeling uncomfortable drawing this fine a line in the definition, which means that Eagleton has succeeded in convincing me to not too thoroughly convince myself.) The history of the critique of ideology is the evolution of theories about the sources and effects of these systems of belief. Is ideology trickle-down mythologizing, always generated by a dominant class and coerced into the lower structures of society? Or on the contrary, as later Marx would postulate, is it something inherent in the structure of a post-capitalist society, the very relationships between human beings at all levels commodified and alienated and reified unto their very core? If an oppressed class develops an ideology that persuades it into revolutionary activity, at what point does the oppositional ideology betray itself, then having to justify its own contradictions as the now dominant ideology? Is ideology a false set of beliefs warping the “truth” of the material world so that an elicit class might maintain its power? Or does an oppressed class’s complicity within the ideological hierarchy mean that there must be some “truth”, however slight, already present in the ideology itself, that eases and massages the oppressed class into a kind of willful submission? Is it even a question of true or false representations of the world, or is ideology driven unconsciously by our need to survive and feel whole within a fractured, atomized existence, within which we might otherwise lose all sense of identity? Is it “identity thinking”, that which fears and reviles any “other”, any non-self, as a threat to its closed system of thought? Is it a question of linguistics, signification, discourse, or all of the above? Where, then, does one seek to find untainted meaning? Can ideology be done away with, or is it somehow “secreted” by all historical civilizations until the end of time? And if, as Freud would claim, all cognition is miscognition, is not the human mind at all times distorted and alienated, and thus ideology its “natural habitat”?
And then the question would be, if not ideology, then what? The answer would seem to be science, discourse, “organic”, decommodified interrelations, embracing the “other”, difference and heterogeneity and the complexities of existence in their totality. But depending on which philosopher you are listening to, all these methods carry, to some extent, their own ideological baggage. Would radical revolution that does away with class hierarchies completely resolve the societal contradictions that ideology is born from, and thus the need for ideology, which would by consequence wither away? Not if mythologizing is a fundamental and unavoidable part of what it is to be a human being, born with defective reasoning and imprisoned in a kind of faulty or false consciousness. So what ideology would follow the end-of-ideology? Is the human not all-too-human? If false consciousness is with us from the moment we make an attempt at being, how can there be a “truth” to uncover beneath ideological distortions? Eagleton doesn't proffer an answer, but puts forth a history and analysis of those who have sought one. A practical, pragmatic response would seem to be to nurture a healthy and pervasive skepticism when approaching interaction with the world at large, despite the inevitable mystification we all are subject to as conscious beings. To trust evidence that is collated from provable facts, and not allow notions to dictate facts for you. To constantly question and put to test the institutions of hegemony that seek to keep us in a perpetual state of obedience. And also, importantly, not to live entirely in ideas, because ideas exist to enable possibilities in the world. The point, remember, isn’t to interpret the world, but to change it. The activity of the study of philosophy, then, would seem to be the generating point of a process that has as its goal the liberation of humanity from a history of these “death-dealing beliefs”.
Terry Eagleton’s study of the history of ideology is the perfect primer for one setting out on an attempt at understanding this concept, which tends toward equivocal definitions, amorphous implications and contrasting origin theories. One of the successes of this book is how it encourages the reader/thinker to embrace a kind of precariousness, slipperiness and mutability when considering what ideology is, how it takes hold and works through society. It quickly becomes apparent that this elasticity of thought is necessary for a subject whose most committed and deepest thinkers have not even come to an agreement on what it means or what properties it holds or the effects it enacts or reflects. Eagleton traces the sundry theories, definitions, and workings of ideology from Antoine Destutt de Tracy (who first formulated the concept of a science of ideas while imprisoned during the Terror- so ideology was literally born amid revolution) through Marx and Engels, Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno, Bourdieu, Voloshinov, Sorel and others, as well as Schopenhauer, Hegel, Heidegger and Freud and even contemporaries such as Foucault and Žižek. This takes the form of a critique of the philosophy each propounds, seeking out the points where it either stands up to a deeper analysis or folds into contradictions with itself or other theories (often enough sliding into contradictions within the same philosophy). Eagleton asks questions more frequently than he comes to conclusions (as will I in the next few paragraphs), and encourages the reader/thinker not to hold a theory as inviolable.
If there is a general, broad “definition” for ideology Eagleton puts forth, it is something like a performative system of beliefs that determine how we live within the social structure, also referring to “the ways in which signs, meanings, and values help to reproduce a dominant social power; but it can also denote any significant conjuncture between discourse and political interests.” Ideology at its root stems from attempting through ideas to resolve certain contradictions in the social order (class, economic, power disparities, etc.) and the extent to which these ideas mythologize themselves into the way we as subjects live out our lives in the world in relation to either humanizing or dehumanizing power structures. It is also to some extent a simplifying system, one that reduces the complexity, plurality, and uniqueness of things into versions of ourselves and simulacra of our inculcated ideas. (I am already feeling uncomfortable drawing this fine a line in the definition, which means that Eagleton has succeeded in convincing me to not too thoroughly convince myself.) The history of the critique of ideology is the evolution of theories about the sources and effects of these systems of belief. Is ideology trickle-down mythologizing, always generated by a dominant class and coerced into the lower structures of society? Or on the contrary, as later Marx would postulate, is it something inherent in the structure of a post-capitalist society, the very relationships between human beings at all levels commodified and alienated and reified unto their very core? If an oppressed class develops an ideology that persuades it into revolutionary activity, at what point does the oppositional ideology betray itself, then having to justify its own contradictions as the now dominant ideology? Is ideology a false set of beliefs warping the “truth” of the material world so that an elicit class might maintain its power? Or does an oppressed class’s complicity within the ideological hierarchy mean that there must be some “truth”, however slight, already present in the ideology itself, that eases and massages the oppressed class into a kind of willful submission? Is it even a question of true or false representations of the world, or is ideology driven unconsciously by our need to survive and feel whole within a fractured, atomized existence, within which we might otherwise lose all sense of identity? Is it “identity thinking”, that which fears and reviles any “other”, any non-self, as a threat to its closed system of thought? Is it a question of linguistics, signification, discourse, or all of the above? Where, then, does one seek to find untainted meaning? Can ideology be done away with, or is it somehow “secreted” by all historical civilizations until the end of time? And if, as Freud would claim, all cognition is miscognition, is not the human mind at all times distorted and alienated, and thus ideology its “natural habitat”?
And then the question would be, if not ideology, then what? The answer would seem to be science, discourse, “organic”, decommodified interrelations, embracing the “other”, difference and heterogeneity and the complexities of existence in their totality. But depending on which philosopher you are listening to, all these methods carry, to some extent, their own ideological baggage. Would radical revolution that does away with class hierarchies completely resolve the societal contradictions that ideology is born from, and thus the need for ideology, which would by consequence wither away? Not if mythologizing is a fundamental and unavoidable part of what it is to be a human being, born with defective reasoning and imprisoned in a kind of faulty or false consciousness. So what ideology would follow the end-of-ideology? Is the human not all-too-human? If false consciousness is with us from the moment we make an attempt at being, how can there be a “truth” to uncover beneath ideological distortions? Eagleton doesn't proffer an answer, but puts forth a history and analysis of those who have sought one. A practical, pragmatic response would seem to be to nurture a healthy and pervasive skepticism when approaching interaction with the world at large, despite the inevitable mystification we all are subject to as conscious beings. To trust evidence that is collated from provable facts, and not allow notions to dictate facts for you. To constantly question and put to test the institutions of hegemony that seek to keep us in a perpetual state of obedience. And also, importantly, not to live entirely in ideas, because ideas exist to enable possibilities in the world. The point, remember, isn’t to interpret the world, but to change it. The activity of the study of philosophy, then, would seem to be the generating point of a process that has as its goal the liberation of humanity from a history of these “death-dealing beliefs”.
Read
October 2, 2019As Karl Marx spent many, many pages dissecting the ideologies before him in The German Ideology, so Terry Eagleton spends relatively fewer pages dissecting the ideologies before him in Ideology, albeit with less of a critical/world-changing eye. The usual suspects show up: Gramsci, Lukacs, Rorty, Stanley Fish, Adorno... So you should probably have some familiarity with their ideas beforehand, and you should be OK with a rather unsexy grumpy-old-man socialism (I am, I donated to Bernie after all). And Eagleton comes up with more questions than answers, honest old grump that he is.
Read
April 12, 2020Odlična studija Terija Igltona o značenju i pitanjima vezanim za pojam ideologije. Iglton ovom knigom ne nudi samo kratak uvod, kao što sugeriše naslov, on pored toga pruža jasan i dubok uvid u ideje, probleme i radove autora koji su se bavile fenomenom ideologije, pa tako je njegova analiza pogodna i za one koji se tek upoznaju sa ovom temom, ali i za one kojima je pojam blizak. Igltonove analize više su nego zanimljive istovremeno i duhovite što daje poseban "šmek" ovoj knjizi, koja je nesumnjivo ispisana hiruški precnzim jezikom. Mada se bavi kretanjem pojma ideologije kroz istoriju, Iglton ne daje stritkno hronološki razvoj ovog pojma, već ga analizira u kontekstu određene struje mišljenja koja se nalazila u istim ili sličnim izvorima, pa jedno poglavlje naslovljeno je "Od Lukača do Gramšija", a ono koje dolazi posle nosi naslov "Od Šopenhaure do Sorela." Zanimljivo je da Iglton pokušava da, pored ostalog, "osposobi " pojam za praktičnu upotrebu i jedan od ciljeva ovog rada jeste da otkloni neutemeljene zablude koje se olako upisuju u pojam ideologije, kao i da temelje za upotrebu samog pojma nađe u stvarnosti (politika, sociologija, jezik).
read-enough-of
October 15, 2013Eagleton is a maddeningly sloppy writer/thinker. He obviously knows a lot about this stuff but the breeziness with which he sweeps over important issues, the frequent use of highly tendentious examples, all of it clothed in a language of apparent care and precision, is dispiriting.
One example: his first chapter is on what ideology is. He is obviously drawing on a tradition of philosophical conceptual analysis here, and the intent is good. He starts by noting that the word "ideology" is used to mean a bunch of different things and that no single definition can capture them all. Fair enough. But then he goes through a bunch of possible definitions and rejects them because some uses of the term would not be covered by them. Perhaps the point of the chapter is simply to prove, or illustrate, the original contention that no single definition will be adequate to all the uses of the word. But if so, it is passed off very strangely, since the bulk of the chapter is written as a consideration of various answers to the question of what ideology is, not what the word "ideology" means. It is thus always unclear whether he's got a specific phenomenon in his sights, one that is referred to by "ideology" (but may not be the only thing referred to by that terms) and is considering various theories of it; or whether he is talking about the meaning of the word "ideology" as it is used in a full range of uses.
Of course, this is a problem that afflicts discussion of many topics. The first chapter of Eric Foner's The Story of American Freedom is similarly confused and confusing. But a careful thinker, something Eagleton's approach seems to make clear he is aspiring to be, should confront these issues and try and disentangle them.
One example: his first chapter is on what ideology is. He is obviously drawing on a tradition of philosophical conceptual analysis here, and the intent is good. He starts by noting that the word "ideology" is used to mean a bunch of different things and that no single definition can capture them all. Fair enough. But then he goes through a bunch of possible definitions and rejects them because some uses of the term would not be covered by them. Perhaps the point of the chapter is simply to prove, or illustrate, the original contention that no single definition will be adequate to all the uses of the word. But if so, it is passed off very strangely, since the bulk of the chapter is written as a consideration of various answers to the question of what ideology is, not what the word "ideology" means. It is thus always unclear whether he's got a specific phenomenon in his sights, one that is referred to by "ideology" (but may not be the only thing referred to by that terms) and is considering various theories of it; or whether he is talking about the meaning of the word "ideology" as it is used in a full range of uses.
Of course, this is a problem that afflicts discussion of many topics. The first chapter of Eric Foner's The Story of American Freedom is similarly confused and confusing. But a careful thinker, something Eagleton's approach seems to make clear he is aspiring to be, should confront these issues and try and disentangle them.
July 15, 2020
Brilhante. Para todos aqueles que se interessam pela génese da ideologia. Por que sobrevive a ideologia à emancipação progressiva das massas? Este é um tema já amplamente dissecado por duas outras autoridades no tema: Slavoj Zizek e Raymond Williams. Aconselho a leitura prévia deste livro [até pelo seu objectivo introdutório] antes de aprofundar o tema com leituras mais complexas. Eagleton é um teórico marxista pelo que, nessa medida, o seu contributo para o estudo da ideologia acaba por ter nuances marxistas; este aspecto menos imparcial não compromete a sua análise, pois esta é diversificada e rigorosa.
Um livro que nos ajuda a perceber o poder da ideologia ao longo da história e nos leva a questionar a legitimidade deste poder que já nos conduziu a grandes atrocidades.
Um livro que nos ajuda a perceber o poder da ideologia ao longo da história e nos leva a questionar a legitimidade deste poder que já nos conduziu a grandes atrocidades.
May 4, 2015
Great book, just one note: it requires enormous attention and concentration.
October 16, 2016
If you want to write a single word, or think a single thought about ideology, this is your perfect literature review. It isn't a treatment that is likely to clarify the murky air around the concept of ideology for the reader (or let me take a step back from generalizing and say that it did not do this for me), for the concept does not allow for that to happen very easily.
Instead, the book succesfully gives a nearly full account of the written thought on and around the subject. For most of the book, Terry Eagleton is in the role of a narrator, of a historian of thought (which makes this a great reference book for the bookshelf of any social scientist), but he comes in to highlight the connections between thinkers and authors, the big knots in the overall argument, and an overall assesment of each theory from his (I must say quite clear and wide) perspective.
Couldn't ask for anything better; a very brilliant book.
Instead, the book succesfully gives a nearly full account of the written thought on and around the subject. For most of the book, Terry Eagleton is in the role of a narrator, of a historian of thought (which makes this a great reference book for the bookshelf of any social scientist), but he comes in to highlight the connections between thinkers and authors, the big knots in the overall argument, and an overall assesment of each theory from his (I must say quite clear and wide) perspective.
Couldn't ask for anything better; a very brilliant book.
December 27, 2024
Guter, komplexer Abriss der Begriffsgeschichte von Ideologie sowie der Verwirrung, die damit verbunden ist. Teils war mein Eindruck, dass hier unterschiedliche Konzepte etwas zu grob zusammengeworfen werden (Bspw. Verdinglichung, Totalität, Ideologie).
December 17, 2022
This book was brilliant although I haven't read all the authors he mentioned it was an excellent introduction to ideology.
I am not sure i agree with his criticism of Louis Althuseeer but i shall read his book too and Antonio Gramsci.
I am not sure i agree with his criticism of Louis Althuseeer but i shall read his book too and Antonio Gramsci.
January 11, 2025
A useful specialist survey of the concept from 1789 to today.
September 24, 2014
not a bad introduction to the subject matter. witty, committed, fine attention to detail. opens with a decent schedule of attempted definitions. contains useful discussion of ideological 'strategies,' and describes the effects of ideology in general. attempts generally to present a history, from the earliest uses up through the 20th century.
August 4, 2015
Some people disapprove but I rather like Eagleton's humour in choosing examples (e.g. the third on the right trireme galley slave) that illustrate his points (e.g. about false consciousness). They make this book a useful critique everyday life. Those who are deadly serious (in every sense of the term) might want to look elsewhere.
Read
February 7, 2015İ met him at library via his book " ideology ".ideology has a large meaning and he mentioned every points .After that ,l will read all his studies.
February 6, 2024
"A socialist is just someone who is unable to get over his or her astonishment that most people who have lived and died have spent lives of wretched, fruitless, unremitting toil."
I found this book very exciting to read. There are big ideas on every page. Ideology: An Introduction accomplishes what the title promises. It is Terry Eagleton's attempt to lay out the history and evolution of ideology. Most of the thinkers discussed in this book are people I have seen referenced countless times, but I had only a cursory understanding of their positions. Eagleton is incredibly gifted at distilling complex ideas. Even the explaining of Marxist concepts, which I feel fairly confident about, felt like a revelation at times. He does a great job of charting Marx's evolution from false consciousness to commodity fetishism.
From the French Revolution to Marx, follows a great chapter on the historicist Marxists, Lukacs and Gramsci. Lukacs' reification expands on commodity fetishism and says that ideology is true to a false situation. We have structurally constrained thought. "Bourgeois ideas do indeed accurately mirror the state of things in bourgeois society; but it is this very state of affairs which is somehow twisted out of true." Gramsci's hegemony expands on the superstructure, it now includes all of civil society. He talks of signification and contesting the whole of culture. Gramsci's goal of organic intellectuals is appealing to me, be educated and lend this to the political struggle. "Common sense is a chaotic aggregate of disparate conceptions - an ambiguous, contradictory zone of experience which is on the whole politically backward."
The next chapter is on Western Marxism, mainly Adorno and Habermas from the Frankfurt School and the Structuralist Marxists, Althusser and Bourdieu. These thinkers feel even more abstract and difficult to grasp than the previous philosophers. They feel social theory is not enough and bring psychoanalysis into the mix. They are critical of all that came before. Freud and Lacan are major influences. Adorno treats ideology as a totalitarian system, he believes only heterodox art can fight back against this all encompassing system. He seems like a bit of a pain in the ass. Habermas is more interesting, his ideas of emancipatory critique and collective self reflection seem helpful. Althusser was the hardest to grasp but he may be the most substantial. He states that Marxist science holds as mathematics does, it exists outside of history. Marx has created an entire new "problematic", or theoretical framework.
The most fun chapter was on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud and Sorel. Eagleton really tears into Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. He says they act as radicals but in effect are conservative, they are irrationalist nihilists and their theories fall apart when pushed to their logical limits. By declaring themselves beyond ideology, and attempting to universalize and naturalize ideas of the Will and Power, they are in fact the ultimate victims of ideology. He has much more respect for Freud.
The last chapter is on Discourse theory and was much too theoretical for me, it seemed almost like a waste of effort to learn the concepts just for Eagleton to refute them. It is useful to understand only because it is the ideological form most intellectuals in university and popular media have fallen into. By reducing everything to discourse, ideas on equal footing, again is an attempt to universalize and legitimize contradictions of the current mode of production. Another case of attempting to go above social reality and becoming the biggest victim of ideological thinking. Discourse theory is in fact historically grounded within the historical moment of the present, of political crisis and a retreat from radicalism to reformism.
If all of this sounds a bit dull, Eagleton has a strong voice and writes with that witty, smart ass tone that the English do so well. It was a fun, concise history of thought that has given me a lot more confidence to try and now read the texts themselves. I want to read Lukacs and Gramsci, more Marx, and maybe Althusser if I work up the courage.
I found this book very exciting to read. There are big ideas on every page. Ideology: An Introduction accomplishes what the title promises. It is Terry Eagleton's attempt to lay out the history and evolution of ideology. Most of the thinkers discussed in this book are people I have seen referenced countless times, but I had only a cursory understanding of their positions. Eagleton is incredibly gifted at distilling complex ideas. Even the explaining of Marxist concepts, which I feel fairly confident about, felt like a revelation at times. He does a great job of charting Marx's evolution from false consciousness to commodity fetishism.
From the French Revolution to Marx, follows a great chapter on the historicist Marxists, Lukacs and Gramsci. Lukacs' reification expands on commodity fetishism and says that ideology is true to a false situation. We have structurally constrained thought. "Bourgeois ideas do indeed accurately mirror the state of things in bourgeois society; but it is this very state of affairs which is somehow twisted out of true." Gramsci's hegemony expands on the superstructure, it now includes all of civil society. He talks of signification and contesting the whole of culture. Gramsci's goal of organic intellectuals is appealing to me, be educated and lend this to the political struggle. "Common sense is a chaotic aggregate of disparate conceptions - an ambiguous, contradictory zone of experience which is on the whole politically backward."
The next chapter is on Western Marxism, mainly Adorno and Habermas from the Frankfurt School and the Structuralist Marxists, Althusser and Bourdieu. These thinkers feel even more abstract and difficult to grasp than the previous philosophers. They feel social theory is not enough and bring psychoanalysis into the mix. They are critical of all that came before. Freud and Lacan are major influences. Adorno treats ideology as a totalitarian system, he believes only heterodox art can fight back against this all encompassing system. He seems like a bit of a pain in the ass. Habermas is more interesting, his ideas of emancipatory critique and collective self reflection seem helpful. Althusser was the hardest to grasp but he may be the most substantial. He states that Marxist science holds as mathematics does, it exists outside of history. Marx has created an entire new "problematic", or theoretical framework.
The most fun chapter was on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud and Sorel. Eagleton really tears into Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. He says they act as radicals but in effect are conservative, they are irrationalist nihilists and their theories fall apart when pushed to their logical limits. By declaring themselves beyond ideology, and attempting to universalize and naturalize ideas of the Will and Power, they are in fact the ultimate victims of ideology. He has much more respect for Freud.
The last chapter is on Discourse theory and was much too theoretical for me, it seemed almost like a waste of effort to learn the concepts just for Eagleton to refute them. It is useful to understand only because it is the ideological form most intellectuals in university and popular media have fallen into. By reducing everything to discourse, ideas on equal footing, again is an attempt to universalize and legitimize contradictions of the current mode of production. Another case of attempting to go above social reality and becoming the biggest victim of ideological thinking. Discourse theory is in fact historically grounded within the historical moment of the present, of political crisis and a retreat from radicalism to reformism.
If all of this sounds a bit dull, Eagleton has a strong voice and writes with that witty, smart ass tone that the English do so well. It was a fun, concise history of thought that has given me a lot more confidence to try and now read the texts themselves. I want to read Lukacs and Gramsci, more Marx, and maybe Althusser if I work up the courage.
December 18, 2024
İdeoloji genelde egemenlerin iktidarını güçlendirmek için anlamlar, göstergeler ve değerlerin yeniden üretilmesine katkıda bulunması anlamına gelir. Bu yaklaşımın olumsuz bir iması var. Daha tarafsızı şu olurdu: siyasal çıkarlar ile söylem arasındaki uyum. İki yaklaşım da iş görüyor ve sorunlar bu ikisini karıştırmaktan kaynaklanıyor.
Alt yapı otomatik olarak bir ideoloji üretmez. Ideoloji dinamiktir, kapalı değildir, çelişkiler taşır. Siyasidir ama siyaset demek değildir. Yani ideoloji çatışmaya açık anlamlandırma sürecidir. Yanlış bilinç bilinenin yanlış veya saçma olduğu anlamına gelmez. İstekler, güçsüzlük hisleri vs gibi faktörlerle ilişkilidir. Egemenler ideolojisini kimlik kurmaya izin verecek şekilde kurar bu yüzden ne kadar otoriter olursa olsun beklentileri ciddiye alır.
Ideoloji fikir açısından çok homojen değildir ama çok dağınık da değildir. Otomatik olarak bir tür harekete yöneltmez. İdeoloji edimseldir ama bir önerme de taşır. İdeoloji bir akıl meselesi değil ama irrasyonel de değil. İdeolojilerin bilinçdışı, duygulanımsal, mitsel ve simgesel boyutları da var. Bu mikro ile makroyu bağlar. Bir kişi ideolojiyi nasıl yaşar sorusuna bu şekilde cevap verebiliriz. Özne merkezlidir ama öznellik meselesine indirgenemez. En etkili durumların bazıları kurumlar tarafından yaratılır yani failliğin o kadar da önemli olmadığı durumlar da vardır.
İdeoloji ile değişmek yalan inançlardan kurtulurken ifşa etkisi ile mümkün olur. Yani alternatif sunma görevi var.
Eagleton tüm bu eleştirilerini literatür üzerinden tartışarak yapıyor (Eleştirdikleri: söylemin kurucu olduğunu söyleyen ya da alt yapı üst yapı arasında mekanik ilişki kuran ekoller). Okuması çok kolay bir kitap değil, okurken bahsedilen isimlere de ayrıca bakmak gerekli. Tartışmaları önden bilen biri için çok verimli bir kitap. Diğer türlü iki kere okumak gerek.
Not olarak: İdeoloji, Marksist metinlerde şuralarda yer alıyor: Alman İdeolojisi (egemen fikirler egemenlerin fikridir), Kapital içinde meta fetişizmi, Althusser- İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları, Lukacs-Tarih ve Sınıf Bilinci içinde Yabancılaşma ve Proleterya Bilinci ve Voloşinov – Marksizm ve Dil Felsefesi.
Alt yapı otomatik olarak bir ideoloji üretmez. Ideoloji dinamiktir, kapalı değildir, çelişkiler taşır. Siyasidir ama siyaset demek değildir. Yani ideoloji çatışmaya açık anlamlandırma sürecidir. Yanlış bilinç bilinenin yanlış veya saçma olduğu anlamına gelmez. İstekler, güçsüzlük hisleri vs gibi faktörlerle ilişkilidir. Egemenler ideolojisini kimlik kurmaya izin verecek şekilde kurar bu yüzden ne kadar otoriter olursa olsun beklentileri ciddiye alır.
Ideoloji fikir açısından çok homojen değildir ama çok dağınık da değildir. Otomatik olarak bir tür harekete yöneltmez. İdeoloji edimseldir ama bir önerme de taşır. İdeoloji bir akıl meselesi değil ama irrasyonel de değil. İdeolojilerin bilinçdışı, duygulanımsal, mitsel ve simgesel boyutları da var. Bu mikro ile makroyu bağlar. Bir kişi ideolojiyi nasıl yaşar sorusuna bu şekilde cevap verebiliriz. Özne merkezlidir ama öznellik meselesine indirgenemez. En etkili durumların bazıları kurumlar tarafından yaratılır yani failliğin o kadar da önemli olmadığı durumlar da vardır.
İdeoloji ile değişmek yalan inançlardan kurtulurken ifşa etkisi ile mümkün olur. Yani alternatif sunma görevi var.
Eagleton tüm bu eleştirilerini literatür üzerinden tartışarak yapıyor (Eleştirdikleri: söylemin kurucu olduğunu söyleyen ya da alt yapı üst yapı arasında mekanik ilişki kuran ekoller). Okuması çok kolay bir kitap değil, okurken bahsedilen isimlere de ayrıca bakmak gerekli. Tartışmaları önden bilen biri için çok verimli bir kitap. Diğer türlü iki kere okumak gerek.
Not olarak: İdeoloji, Marksist metinlerde şuralarda yer alıyor: Alman İdeolojisi (egemen fikirler egemenlerin fikridir), Kapital içinde meta fetişizmi, Althusser- İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları, Lukacs-Tarih ve Sınıf Bilinci içinde Yabancılaşma ve Proleterya Bilinci ve Voloşinov – Marksizm ve Dil Felsefesi.
April 28, 2021
Uno de los libros más importantes y abarcadores que se han escrito sobre las teorías de la ideología, pues no sólo se encarga de hacer una revisión de ellas sino que propone una particular forma de entender la ideología en tanto discurso cuyos efectos se dan en contextos específicos a favor de intereses singulares de legitimación política. Nunca le podré agradecer lo suficiente a Terry por enseñarme a pensar de manera más precisa y tensiva sobre los temas de los que trata (sea filosofía política, sea sobre teoría literaria). Sus enseñanzas siempre son una invitación a ser reflexivo y cuidadoso con la teoría a la vez que con los usos que le damos. En definitiva, un libro imperdible para quien tenga interés en aprender sobre teoría política.
July 8, 2021
I hesitate to throw around the word genius but I'm going to do it here. Eagleton weaves together so many threads from philosophy, political science, sociology, psychoanalysis, economics, and more in his examination of the slippery and difficult concept of ideology throughout history. He has a way of being able to distill complex philosophical positions into two or three pithy sentences. His critiques are incisive and withering, his analysis is balanced and points out the flaws and contributions of the authors he examines on both the left and the right (although he clearly sympathizes with a Marxist position), and his writing is at times laugh-out-loud funny. I can't wait to read more of his stuff.
February 11, 2020
El libro está bien: Terry Eagleton es muy didáctico y, aunque a veces dé pinceladas demasiado gruesas que conviene complementar con fuentes primarias, permite al lector hacerse una idea de los distintos sentidos sincrónicos y diacrónicos del término "ideología".
Lo que es una auténtica aberración es la edición española publicada por Paidós. Parece traducida deliberadamente mal y no son pocos los pasajes en los que se dice exactamente lo contrario al original. Esto hace que la lectura sea continuamente entorpecida por pasajes sin sentido en los que se afirman unas cosas y se concluyen sus contrarios. Por eso, en la medida de lo posible, recomiendo ir directamente a la versión en inglés.
Lo que es una auténtica aberración es la edición española publicada por Paidós. Parece traducida deliberadamente mal y no son pocos los pasajes en los que se dice exactamente lo contrario al original. Esto hace que la lectura sea continuamente entorpecida por pasajes sin sentido en los que se afirman unas cosas y se concluyen sus contrarios. Por eso, en la medida de lo posible, recomiendo ir directamente a la versión en inglés.
May 1, 2023
Marxist Jordan Peterson
Considering Eagleton explicitly and regularly positions himself against "postmodernism" it is quite amazing how little he attempts to engage with the texts of the supposed practitioners of this supposed mode of thought.
Even more amazing is, given the brevity of his (pseudo)analysis, how often he gets them wrong. Just look at his paragraphs on Baudrillard or de Man. It is quite clear he has no idea what he is talking about.
Also I do not think he really has anything new to say about idealogy that was not already said by Althusser or Zizek before.
Considering Eagleton explicitly and regularly positions himself against "postmodernism" it is quite amazing how little he attempts to engage with the texts of the supposed practitioners of this supposed mode of thought.
Even more amazing is, given the brevity of his (pseudo)analysis, how often he gets them wrong. Just look at his paragraphs on Baudrillard or de Man. It is quite clear he has no idea what he is talking about.
Also I do not think he really has anything new to say about idealogy that was not already said by Althusser or Zizek before.
January 30, 2026
Eagleton has cemented himself as one of the weakest thinkers in contemporary Marxism on the scene today. Not only is he seemingly incapable of understanding Derrida, this also applies to Lukács, Althusser, et al. No wonder, then, that Eagleton ends up siding with the likes of Adorno and Habermas (and, unfortunately, Bourdieu, who I rather like). Nevertheless, this cannot even serve as a primer into the main thinkers of the ideological, because they are attended by readings so weak as to essentially be incorrect. Time to retire this one.
October 12, 2025
Hacía tiempo que no leía un libro que se me hiciese tan lento y no creo que sea tanto porque el contenido sea denso si no porque no tiene ninguna clase de estructura bien definida. Está todo el rato repasando distintas definiciones de ideología pero luego toca temas de forma demasiado superficial (el concepto de estructura y superestructura por ejemplo). En fin, sin más. Trata cosas interesantes no digo que no pero bueno.
November 16, 2017
Eagleton - the MVP for explaining prattle.
May 4, 2021
Quite an introduction to a rainbow of ideologies and social visions...
May 30, 2021
Banger of a text, even if Eagleton can't help himself from strawmanning "postmodernism" all the time (his critiques of it are still quite legit though)
May 29, 2022
ترجمه فارسیش اینقدر بد بود که نتونستم بیشتر از ۵۰ صفحه جلوبرم. مطمئن نیستم که این رو یک انسان ترجمه کرده یا رایانه.
December 24, 2022
Πολύ δυνατό
September 16, 2023
Ideas were alright. Writing style was terrible for me
January 9, 2024
ایگلتون رو خیلی دوست دارم ولی نتونستم این کتاب رو تموم کنم. احتمالا از ترجمه بدی بود که خوندم (نشر بان). دوست دارم متن اصلی هم یه نگاه بندازم و بعد نظرمو تکمیل کنم.
September 7, 2024
Essential post-marx reading
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews