Cultura

by Terry Eagleton, Pedro Paulo Pimenta (Translator)

Terry Eagleton apresenta neste livro um sobrevoo da história do conceito de cultura e sua evolução ao longo dos últimos séculos. Unindo o erudito e o popular e indo de Marx a Nietzsche e Freud, passando por Oscar Wilde, T. S. Eliot e Wittgenstein, o panorama traçado nos abre os olhos para as facetas muitas vezes ignoradas de uma noção que perpassa quase todos os aspectos de nossas vidas. "Se Terry Eagleton não existisse, seria necessário inventá-lo." — Simon Critchley, autor de 'O livro dos filósofos mortos'

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Cultural, History, Sociology, Politics, Theory

162 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2016

About the author

Widely 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.

Reviews

[G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Furioso breviario de estudios culturales. Erudito, agudo, divertido. Predomina el humor inglés, imperialista y mordaz. Eagleton es un Frankenstein ensamblado con partes de cadáveres ideológicos. Es católico y marxista, imperialista y demócrata, elitista y populista, conservador y revolucionario, inglés e irlandés. Ser inglés o irlandés también es una ideología. Lo interesante es que todas estas ideologías se llevan mal entre sí. Por eso los planteos de Eagleton parecen un campo de batalla en formato videoclip. El concepto de cultura no se queda quieto, es político. Mucho arte, pensamiento e historia han transcurrido desde el hachazo de Spengler que dejó el alma griega de un lado (griechische Seele, Kultur) y el intelecto romano del otro lado (römischer Intellekt, Zivilsation) en Untergang des Abendlandes. Thomas Mann profundizó la fisura, amplificó sus pretensiones de universalidad. Sin embargo, entre el cultivo de las potencialidades superiores del ser humano y la concreción material de los emprendimientos de la voluntad habría una brecha que resulta ser más ilusoria que acertada según Eagleton. La cuestión es mucho más complicada, mezclada, confundida. Lo único que persiste cuando Eagleton revisa las teorías más importantes de la cultura -o algunas intuiciones sueltas- es lo político. La cultura es política en el sentido de sujeción a la dinámica del poder. El resto es ruido.

[Oliver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Civilisation is what gives you postboxes, culture is what decides what colour you paint them. This was, to me, Eagleton's best contribution to the articulation of what culture is.

[Peter Geyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terry Eagleton's latest effort comes with recommendations that include him being a good read even if you don't agree with him and that he would have to be invented if he didn't exist.

My personal view on books is that 220 pages is both a mean and an outer limit for easy comprehension and reflection, with less chance for padding or waffling. Culture is a slim text, about the right size for train travel, although I started it in a bar whilst waiting for friends and finished it at home.

Eagleton is an incisive and often witty writer who is happy to skewer ideas without being ad hominem, something that's gone missing in a lot of professional and other discourse. An exception, if you like, may be "postmodernists" – a regular Eagleton target, and for good reason – but individuals are essentially not named and shamed. He is of the left, and so Marx and Freud get a run, but not in an ideological way, to me at any rate.

In fact an acknowledged theme is Irish, Eagleton's own ethnic origins, and so we get Edmund Burke, Jonathan Swift and Oscar Wilde as well as what is labelled "Irish anti-colonial politics," an interpretive factor that gave me insight into Wilde in particular, but also Burke. Eagleton comments here, as elsewhere about the insights provided about a culture, or an idea, of those on the periphery, so you can be engaged in a particular level of society, as Wilde was, or Swift, but spend your time satirising it, often mercilessly. Herder, the German philosopher is also a key referent and others such as Wittgenstein and Rousseau are mentioned along the way

The book starts with Eagleton defining his terms, which seems to me a logical thing to do, but is absent in many other texts on a variety of topics. Maybe it's a brave thing to do, because he can then be assessed, and it's the deliberate vagueness of postmodernism that is part of his critique. Culture can mean anything, particularly in organisational terms, and the author identifies it as a body of artistic and intellectual work; a process of spiritual and intellectual development; the values, customs and beliefs and symbolic practices by which men and women live; or a whole way of life.

Eagleton is not a cultural relativist and puts forward a combination of ethical and logical reasons why this is not the case. Culture and civilization are compared, the influence of a social unconscious is discussed, as well as Hollywood and literary criticism. The examples he gives to bolster his argument come from the present and the past, with some projections about the future, of the arts and humanities in a neo-liberal world, for instance. The historical examples locate the ideas of the people he is using to illustrate his thesis in their own time, culture if you like and contemporary discussions include social and political observations, which I found persuasive or occasions for reflection. The old term "possessive individualism," which I encountered in 17th Century English history studies in a book by C.B. Macpherson came to mind and I might revisit that text as it is in my current library.

To return to where I started, with the praise of blurbs, Terry Eagleton makes you think, which is not everyone's cup of tea, perhaps most people for that matter. Here he writes clearly, without obfuscatory jargon (not a clear phrase) and presents a line of argument accessibly and briefly. As a person who likes to think and who likes his perspective, I enjoyed this book and look forward to his next one, which may appear in a few months time, if his track record is any indication.

[Knjigočatac · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poslije ovakvog miš-maša citata, duhovito-dosjetljivih, stilski izvanrednih, rečenica – koje katkad glasno-proviđenički prodiru –, svakovrsnih opaski i polioptičkog rakursa analize, čini mi se najrazboritijim ona špenglerovska proročka destruktivnost. Iglton, uprkos prilično nesređenom diskursu, daje upravo takvim modusom vođenja riječi, tačnu sliku savremenosti u kulturološkom kontekstu: ona je zbrzana, raznolika, ne polifonična nego kakofonična, tako da se uviđanjem naše slike svijeta i društva ovako prikazanog rađa ona dragocjena žižekovska afirmacija otuđenja kao osnovno osjećanje i, čini (li mi) se, jedini način da budemo spaseni.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmm... Terry Eagleton does an intense session of mental acrobatics in order to disavow all possible value to cultural/identity politics. Favours a pretty dated marxism. Interesting introduction to some of the key debates but deliberately broad brushstrokes leave room for a pretty crusty and unconvincing concluding argument. Feels like an old man nostalgic for when he was trendy. Sad!

[Puella Sole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moram priznati da sam malo više očekivala od ove knjige. Više u smislu da bude malo jasniji kocept, detaljnija razrada onoga o čemu se piše, jer sam u mnogim dijelovima imla utisak kao da čitam nečije prepričavanje onoga što zna i što je negdje pročitao ili čuo o Herderu ili Vajldu itd. U suštini, knjiga je koncipirana oko ideje definisanja spone i razlika između civilizacije i kulture, a onda i kao svojevrsni pregled pogleda na kulturu koji se pripisuju ličnostima kakve su Herder, Vajld ili Edmund Berk, između ostalih. Da, ima zanimljivih zapažanja, što autora knjige, što autora o kojima on piše i čije misli i dijelove iz knjiga prenosi, tu su i osvrti na pitanje smrti Boga i mogućnosti stavljanja kulture na njegovo mjesto, uspostavljanje relacije između kulture i kapitalizma te razvoja medija, ali ipak, koliko god da sve to zvuči potencijalno interesantno, nedostajalo mi je tu malo preglednosti i zaokružnosti kako bih potpuno uživala u onom što čitam i stekla utisak da će se svi ti stavovi nešto duže zadržati u glavi. Možda i ponajbolji dijelovi: upadice čija osnova leži u humoru autora (ponekad i prilično surovom).

[Grace Richards · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bit pretentious tbh (what did I expect though really?)

[Pablo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro escrito con erudición, crítica, ironía y humor. Se centra en el uso del concepto cultura en la historia moderna: su connotación y denotación

Si bien el libro en gran parte es el análisis del concepto de cultura de distintos autores, especialmente de Burke, Herder y Wilde; el autor logra entrever como la visión de estos pensadores era el reflejo de la época en la cual vivieron..

Entre un constante análisis y crítica, la forma en que analiza el concepto de cultura no es neutro, y desde un principio el autor transparenta sus pretensiones. Sin embargo, incluso aunque no se llegue a compartir las opiniones del autor, el libro sigue siendo valioso como una introducción a la historia de la idea de cultura.

[Marina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me ha parecido muy interesante este libro. Es cierto que me ha costado leerlo en algunas partes porque hay mucha información y muchos aspectos teóricos. Pero en general creo que es muy interesante ver cómo explora el autor el concepto de cultura y como este ha evolucionado en los últimos tiempos. También me ha gustado que incluyera el pensamiento de otros pensadores como Raymond Williamos o Oscar Wilde.

[Josh Goddard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Whilst Eagleton’s entertaining prose and effortless whit remain ever-present, the book’s argument was unconvincing, confused and at times bizarre.

In the first chapter, Eagleton seeks to define the scope and terms of his discussion. He identifies that culture can be narrowly defined in terms of the arts and humanities, more broadly considered as “the values, customs, beliefs and symbolic practices by which men and women live” (p.1), or even more broadly-still defined as “a whole way of life” (p.1). Eagleton rejects the latter-most definition as too broad, suggesting that to have a more fruitful discussion of culture we should separate it as a concept from that of “civilisation”. Civilisation, he suggests, concerns “[a peoples’] practical, material mode of existence”, whilst culture is best thought of as part of the “symbolic sphere” (p.4); “roughly speaking, mailboxes are part of civilisation, but what colour you paint them is a matter of culture” (p.5). I can see what Eagleton is getting at here - using “civilisation” to basically mean Modernity - and he does a half-decent job of trying to establish the line between culture and civilisation, later conceptualising this as a distinction “between activities which have an external goal and those whose ends are internal to them” (p.21). Whilst perhaps some more time or precision applied to this distinction may have been helpful, it is ultimately a useful one, and is used throughout the rest of the book to underpin a political strategy; if culture is treated separately from civilisation, it can function as a critique of it (or of industrial capitalist Modernity more specifically).

The main conceptual and theoretical problem in the book, for me, is not Eagleton’s separation of culture from civilisation, but how he seamlessly flits between the first two definitions of culture mentioned above. It is not at all clear, when he’s talking about culture, if he is referring to art or to a broader set of customs, values etc. Whilst neither definition is more inherently valuable than the other, and it is perfectly possible to develop an argument involving both, it stands to reason that once you’ve established that these are different definitions you should acknowledge this in your argument. This imprecision leads the discussion to be quite directionless and, at times, self-indulgent.

Certainly the strongest part of the book comes towards the end. As mentioned above, he argues that culture should act as a critique of capitalist civilisation, echoing Romanticists such as Friedrich Schiller and William Blake in arguing that capitalist society brings with it an “order of rivalry and acquisitiveness”, rendering worthless anything that “[exists] just for the sake of it” such as creativity and custom (p.114). Furthermore, he holds that socialists like Marx and Williams Morris go further than the Romanticists by attaching their cultural critique to a political force and project (in the socialist movement); “without such a material incarnation, the idea of culture is bound to remain abstract and academicist. Unlike Schiller and Arnold, both Marx and Morris inquire into the question of what material conditions would be necessary for social life to prove more fulfilling, and find an answer to their query in the abolition of capitalism” (p.123). In other words, Eagleton is arguing that the leftist position on “culture” should be that abolishing or diminishing capitalism will lead our social lives and interactions to become less commodified and devoted to material acquisition in aid of survival, leaving us more time, energy and inclination to pursue more creative cultural pursuits. This is convincing, but clearly quite unoriginal.

What is absent, though, is any understanding of what a leftist culture (in terms of customs or arts) should look like, or indeed whether it should “look like” anything at all. I think part of this weakness comes from Eagleton’s confusion of the two possible definitions of culture. For instance, in his endorsement of the Romanticist and Marx/Morris arguments, he is clearly treating culture in terms of artistic or creative pursuits; yet at the same time he suggests that his position is somewhat aligned with that of the conservative Edmund Burke, since Burke also suggests that culture and politics cannot (and should not) be separated (p.124). This is confused, though, since Burke is largely conceptualising culture in the broader sense of customs/values. As such, he’s wrestling with two distinct concepts, and his argument is falling down the gap between.

A satisfactory position, I think, would be to promote a less prescriptive, more organic conception of culture. The explicit pursuit of political power and social cohesion through a unifying “culture”, in the Burkean sense, is authoritarian and conservative, and, whilst I totally support Eagleton’s case that the abolition of capitalism in order to leave people more time and energy for cultural pursuits is the valid leftist position, I think it should probably stop there, without concerning itself too much with what these pursuits should look like (aside from them not harming others, which is pretty obvious). However, Eagleton doesn’t stop at this. In the background of his argument there’s an underlying urge to stipulate and adjudicate, best demonstrated by his “critique” of post-modernism (which I detail below), or even his wider work - as his remarkable article on football, which he deems the “opium of the masses”, attests.

A segment of the book that really stood out was Eagleton’s attack on what he deems “postmodern” values, such as cultural relativism, diversity, and anti-essentialism (p.30-48). He oversimplifies and straw-mans the post-structuralist tradition in this chapter, leading to a series of banal and bizarre ‘put-downs’; “[politically correct students] tend to sing the praises of marginality without recognising that some of those who are currently marginal should at all costs remain so. Serial killers and psychopathic cult leaders rank prominently among them” (p.35); “There have been moves in Britain to hybridise the National Health Service by mixing private medical provision with public healthcare. One takes it that the champions of hybridity as a good in itself must endorse such a project.” (p.33); “The US Republican party is a hybrid organisation, including both liberal Republicans and Tea Party members, a fact that those for whom difference and diversity are unambiguous goods must surely welcome” (33). I think these quotes speak to the fundamentally unserious nature of the argument forwarded here; the briefest glimpse at liberal multicultural politics would suggest that its adherents have managed to address such silly objections - that sexuality, race, and gender-identity should be treated differently to the deliberately provocative, but downright weird, categories that Eagleton forwards is surely self-evident - it’s liberalism 1-0-1, Terry. His sneeringly casual dismissal of these ideas, without being explicitly authoritarian in-and-of itself, does suggest a slight blindspot towards, or even comfort with, authoritarianism - a lack of intellectual wrestling which put me at unease.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit hand-wavey at times and will certainly be less palatable for those not of leftist/Marxist sympathies, but this book is still rather good. Eagleton spends a good portion of the book discussing what exactly culture is as well as some historical notions of it which is interesting regardless of one's political leanings (and especially becauses it draws on thinkers from both sides of the political spectrum).

He also spends a bit of time talking about popular culture and the pervasiveness of postmodern notions about Truth (that is, the lack of a sort of objective truth, at least in realms relating to culture and aesthetics). While he doesn't do much to show or prove the existence of Truth aside from some spiced up rhetoric and intuition-priming examples, the idea is still persuasive (except perhaps to pragmatists or those not immersed in the philosophical literature). This is where it gets rather interesting as one of his points (although not especially clearly cached out) is about how the ubiquity of culture is ultimately detrimental to the concept. By allowing 'culture' to be tagged onto just about anything (e.g. 'beach culture', 'skateboard culture', etc.) we strip the concept of any importance. Given the rich and expansive linguistic framework we have inherited, I tend to side with Eagleton in believing that the ubiquity of the term 'culture' is nothing but detrimental to the richer and more important concept of culture.

What Eagleton misses, in my opinion, is any sort of discussion of Plato which I take much of the literature on culture and its role to originate. Given Plato's views on the necessity of a 'Noble Lie' to help start the ideal republic as well as Eagleton's discussion of the role of myth in culture-creation, it is borderline-indefensible to not have discussed Plato especially considering that he spends a large chunk of the book doing historical background.

Another question is why care about culture at all - distinct from the comparative question regarding whether one culture is better or another. Eagleton seems to obviously (and especially considering his being a Marxist) be partial to some sort of perfectionist politics rather than a liberal politics. Given the Devlin/Hart debate in the 20th century regarding how robust a culture need be to maintain a state (i.e. to not have the state collapse into chaos) it seems to me to be worthy of discussion of why we ought to care at all, why should we be partial to any culture when all it takes to maintain a political state(or so it seems to this point) is a thin bond in which we simply trust that our neighbours will not assault our property or our persons?

[Daniel Gutiérrez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este libro muestra una evolución del concepto de cultura, desde sus origenes en el siglo XVIII hasta hoy. La conclusión gira entorno a una crítica del capitalismo actual, y la idea que la cultura se vuelto una categoría mercatil en la que caben ideologías de la diversidad y la identidad, que desplazan lo político, entendido como el campo de los problemas sociales concretos: el hambre y la guerra, por ejemplo.

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wrote up a detailed review on my blog here:
The Promise and Limitations of Culture

[Shokai Sinclair · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a great piece that adds to the discussion of culture and politics. I felt like it gave me a lot to think about after the Trump election.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

If someone sat you down and asked you just what the word “culture” means, how would you answer that question? Most likely you would first think of a nationalistic answer - such as American culture or French culture. But, if you thought about it some more there would be answers like high culture, ethnic culture, religious culture, political culture, identity culture, entertainment culture, etc. - obviously a multifaceted term.

Prof Terry Eagleton takes on this term along with its historical context to its social conclusion - the postmodern condition of commoditization of culture. How did it get this way? Eagleton steps back in time to attempt to show that culture used to be more fundamental to human existence - blending the day to day life of work, customs, art, religion and commerce with the society or civilization people lived in. However, civilization evolved with industrial and informational revolutions that started the fragmentation of just what cultures were. He makes a strong case to separate cultures from civilizations (think of great architecture as a symbol of civilization but the designs and colors as being cultural).

He then dives deep into philosophical and literary figures (Marx, Herder, Burke, Wilde, Eliott, Swift) as examples of the historical commentary on cultural changes, colonialism, nationalism, etc that pushed modern society to commodity based values - everything has value and a price from education to the arts. Commodity includes everyone making it something to be culturally acceptable. The unfortunate consequence is a disconnection from the richness of what culture used to be to something more political with romantic nationalism.

I’m paraphrasing a lot here but I do struggle with authors taking on postmodern or social philosophy who don’t have a stronger philosophy background mainly due to their inability to lay out a more coherent logical argument. Eagleton is a professor of literature and makes a good case yet the book winds through the complexity of culture’s role in human development and societal change in a foggy and meandering way. It was never very clear just what this book was trying to conclude - the reader gets the general point but ends up in uncertainty and a vague discomfort. Yes, our culture has become fragmented, nationalized and whitewashed in capitalism. But, what does that truly mean - or in Eagleton’s case, where does that leave us? Is there an argument here or more of a polemic on the problems of postmodern society???

4 stars for an interesting topic but 2.5 stars for organization and structure.

[Dheeraj Mekala · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts with defining culture from various philosophers' eyes and explaining how the definition evolved with time. This part is 3/4th of the book and the last quarter deals with how culture would probably evolve with the uprise of multiculturalism and inclusiveness. I started this book for the last quarter and it was a bit disappointing to see it being discussed so little. Overall, it is an interesting read but super dense with all philosophical jargon.

My favorite part from the book is where the author explains that culture is seeping into everything we do with the rise in industrial capitalism and culture market. And, it would be important to distinguish culture without content while objectively evaluating everything.

[Javier Sanchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es un poco caótico, el primer capítulo parece una batería de ideas sin mucho orden, el segundo sobra completamente y es una reducción al absurdo y un compendio de críticas a ideas que se pueden discutir y debatir de forma mucho más constructiva, el tercer y el cuarto capítulo son comentarios a autores que, pese a estar bien, tampoco pintan mucho. En definitiva, el libro podría ser perfectamente solo el quinto capítulo y ya.

[Alberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eagleton arroja luz sobre un concepto, cultura, tan manoseado como ideología o civilización, y forma un mosaico interesante, y divertido, del papel de la cultura en nuestro presente. Muy bueno.

[Beyza · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sanırım benim kitaptan beklentim çok başka idi. Ben " kültür kavramıyla ilgili genel" olan, objektif, anlaşılır, sade açıklamalar ve bol, çeşitli örnekler beklerken, karşıma olaylara Marxist kuramdan baktığını iddia edip, Katolik İrlanda köklerinden sıyrılamamış ve yalnızca İrlanda edebiyatındaki isimlerden ve onların bakış açılarından bahsedip duran, sübjektif, alakasız şeyler anlatıp duran bir yazarın kitabı çıktı. Yazarda, Fransız ve İngiliz edebiyatçılara karşı, bir-iki istisna isim harici, bir önyargı olduğunu düşünüyorum.

Elimdeki versiyonun nasıl üçüncü baskı olduğunu da aklım almadı açıkçası. Yazarın bazı fikirlerine katılıyorum ancak çoğu görüşünü sevmedim. Sonuç olarak kitabı önermiyorum. Janjanlı kapak görseli, sizi aldatmasın.
Kitaptan örnek bir cümle ile alıntı yapıp, buradan koşarak uzaklaşıyorum:

"Bir çöl faresini beslemenin mikrodalga fırında pişirmeye yeğ olduğunu insan hangi korkunç tanrısal bakış açısından iddia etme hakkına sahip olabilir?" sf 135

[mariasicilia · Rating 2 out of 5]

tremendo instrumento de tortura

[Django Laić · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nakon naslova 'Razum, vjera i revolucija', 'Zašto je Marx bio u pravu', 'O zlu' i 'Kultura i smrt Boga', Naklada Ljevak je u biblioteci Bookmarker urednika Kristijana Vujičića objavila i novu knjigu slavog teoretičara kulture Terryja Eagletona, jednostavno nazvanu 'Kultura'.

Kao i samo ime, i tema ove knjige je općenita, za razliku od prethodnih nabrojenih naslova koji su se bavili vjerom, moralom i marksizmom, a bavi se uglavnom pokušajem definiranja fluidnog pojma kulture, te različitim interpretacijama iste kroz povijest misli. Posebno svjetlo pritom baca na interpretaciju kulture kao društveno nesvjesnog u pisanjima mislioca poput Edmunda Burkea i Johanna Gottfrieda Herdera.

Eagleton na početku ističe kako se na pojam kulture može gledati vrlo usko, kao zbroj intelektualnih i umjetničkih djela, odnosno manje usko kao proces duhovnog i intelektualnog razvoja. Šire shvaćanje pojma obuhvaća vrijednosti, običaje i vjerovanja prema kojima ljudi žive, a u najširem smislu, kultura predstavlja cjelokupan način života uopće. No, kulturu moramo shvatiti i kao zadaću pojedinca prema samome sebi, u kojoj kroz nadogradnju pojedinac mora stvoriti nešto vrijedno na temelju onoga što mu je priroda dala, što je proces u kojemu je čovjek u isto vrijeme i umjetnik i umjetničko djelo.

Jednako tako, kultura je i međudjelovanje unutar naroda, gdje djeluje kao ono što Eagleton naziva “društvenim nesvjesnim,” sustav ponašanja u kojem će, prema Burkeovim rječima “dobro uzgojeni umovi biti skloni uživanju”. Upravo kao i pojedinac, i država mora postati umjetničko djelo, želi li se uspješno razvijati. Tek u tako uređenoj državi može se govoriti o patriotizmu, jer ne može se voljeti zemlju koja nije vrijedna ljubavi. A naša bi zemlja mogla podosta naučiti od Burkea i Eagletona, pogotovo kada pišu da djelotvorna vlast počiva na kolektivnoj amneziji, na upravo suprotnome od omiljene preokupacije Hrvata, a to je konstantno prekapanje po ranama iz prošlosti i razračunavanje s ratovima koji su okončani pred više od sedamdeset godina.

Bez obzira gledamo li na kulturu kao “uzor prema kojem se živi, oblik […] samoostvarenja, plod djelovanje elitne skupine ili životni oblik cijelog naroda, kritiku sadašnjosti ili prikaz budućnosti,” Eagleton kao ključnu osobu kojoj se svi ti oblici stapaju vidi “apostola kulture” Oscara Wildea, čovjeka koji se najviše približio idealu života od kulture time što je težio da od svog života napravi umjetničko djelo, pa mu posvećuje cijelo poglavlje, možda i najbolje u cijeloj knjizi. Svakako bi nas obradovalo da mu u skorijoj budućnosti posveti i cijelu knjigu.

Eagleton u svojoj interpretaciji kulturi suprostavlja civilizaciju kao industrijaliziranost, tehnologiju, konkurenciju i inzistiranje na materijalnom. Iako je kultura nadgradnja koja nužno nastaje na ekonomskoj bazi (ima materijalne uvjete), konstantno inzistiranje isključivo na bazi nužno oduzima prostor za razvijanje nadgradnje, a to Eagletonu pruža idealnu priliku da tekst prožme jednom od svojih omiljenih tema, filozofijom Karla Marxa.

“Kultura” je svojom ugodnom duljinom od stotinu i pedesetak stranica, širinom teme i stilom pisanja jedno od najpitkijih Eagletonovih djela dosad prevedenih na hrvatski, a autor se osjeća nesputano u prilikama kad može zabljesnuti erudicijom, grabeći primjere istom mjerom iz vrela povijesti filozofije, visoke umjetnosti ili aktualne popularne kulture. Bilo bi izrazito zanimljivo prisustvovati na njegovom predavanju i o temama iz ove knjige, nakon što smo ga imali priliku dosad slušati na Subversive festivalu gdje je pričao o Marxu i Filozofskom teatru gdje su tema bile Shakespeareove tragedije.

[Peter Schmidt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lucid and concise readings of Burke, Swift, Herder, Austen, Marx, Wilde, and T.S. Eliot, among others. The book is less focused and persuasive when Eagleton traces the long and complicated dialectic between capitalism and various meanings of “culture.”

Eagleton’s own version of Marx’s base vs. superstructure dichotomy has various forms of cultural “superstructure” competing with each other and often canceling each other out. He also understands these competing versions of “culture” to be hubristic: each thinks they are the most powerful force of all, able at will to intervene into capitalism’s workings and alter its course, or free to transcend it. These various understandings of “culture” certainly don’t think of culture as secondary and determined by/complicit with economic forces and structures, as Marx did. Eagleton despairingly mocks cultural studies’ and postmodernism’s various forms of delusion in his Swiftian concluding chapter, “The Hubris of Culture,” which traces how capitalism and the marketplace have more power over our ideas of culture than ever before, basically erasing any possibility for culture to generate powerful oppositional ideas and energies, as opposed to various forms of consumerism and status acquisition.

Some quotations:
“[C]ulture has shed its innocence. Indeed, the history of the modern age is among other things the tale of the gradual demystification of this noble ideal. From [culture’s] sublime status in the thought of thinkers like Schiller, Herder and Arnold, it becomes caught up in a dangerously rhapsodic brand of nationalism, entangled in racist anthropology, absorbed into general commodity production and embroiled in political conflict. Far from providing an antidote to power, it turns out to be deeply collusive with it…. (148)

“[C]apitalism has incorporated culture for its own material ends… this aestheticized mode of capitalist production [the ‘culture’ industries, the ‘creative’ economy, etc.] has proved more ruthlessly instrumental than ever” (152). “Neo-liberal capitalism has no difficulty with terms like ‘diversity’ or ‘inclusiveness,’ as it does with the language of class struggle” (154).

“Today’s cultural politics … speaks the language of gender, identity, marginality, diversity and oppression, but not for the most part the idiom of state, property, class-struggle, ideology and exploitation. Roughly speaking, it is the difference between anti-colonialism and postcolonialism. Cultural politics of this kind are in one sense the very opposite of elitist notions of culture. Yet they share in their own way that elitism’s overvaluing of cultural affairs, as well as its distance from the prospect of fundamental change.” (160-61).

[Emilio Minichiello · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.2 stars) This will probably be my last philosophy book for a while. While it was better than the last ones ive read, this one was still quite boring. The idea of this book is supposedly to define culture, but I don’t think it really does that. Instead its mostly a repudiation of cultural relativism, which even though I agree with and think the author made a few interesting points about it that I hadn’t thought of, I just didn’t find it terribly engaging. I found focusing the arguments on the conflict between Ireland and Britain a bit odd and kind of distracted from the points more than they strengthened them. The last chapter was the best in my opinion about global capitalism’s effect on culture, and I kind of wish that was the thesis of this book instead. It was interesting to compare the high-minded ideas of culture as a form of in-group for say victorian england and the now very multicultural aspects of pop culture, and I found the author’s position that this has a fracturing effect on people pretty convincing. Overall, this was definitely the most coherent and convincing philosophy book i’ve read in a while, but ultimately didn’t have much of an effect on me.

[Işıl · Rating 2 out of 5]

i grew tired literally halfway through. Once Eagleton zeroed in on Burke and Burke alone, he lost me. you make such a bold claim that you will talk about such a wide and far-reaching, open-ended notion 'culture' in less than 200 pages, yet you fill 40+ pages focusing on Burke, which trickles down to infrequent references to him until the last page. couldnt facepalm for i was holding the book with two hands.

[HsynBuendia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kendini tekrar eden cümleler, yeniden yeniden yapılan tanımlamalar. Kültür ün ne olduğu üzerine genel geçer düşünce ve tanımların dışında yeni bir şey söylemeyen, düşündürmeyen, liseler için falan yazılmış olmalı dedirten bir kitap.

[Laura Gaelx · Rating 2 out of 5]

Como si acabase de finalizar primero de antropología y, en una charla de bar, tratase de resumir todo lo aprendido, sin ningún argumento específico. Interesantes reflexiones, eso sí.

[melina]

Don't tell my teacher I only read about half of this. Also this sparked a weird fascination with Oscar Wilde?

[Colin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the whole, Terry Eagleton's Culture is a broad yet short meditation on a variety of ideas and concepts that fit under and intersect with notions and impressions of culture. Therefore, it is tricky to find a coherent thesis throughout Eagleton's book, but as he writes in the Preface, "Perspicacious readers," will undoubtedly detect "an Irish motif running throughout the book" (ix). This "Irish motif" as he describes it, anchors Culture around a set of predictable suppositions, but a clearer thesis may have made Eagleton's book more enjoyable.

Chapter 3 titled "The Social Unconscious," is particularly interesting. By suggesting that the "social unconscious is one thing we mean by culture," Eagleton explicitly references and subsequently uses a Freudian framework to understand the impulsive and inconsistent trends that define popular consumerist culture (50). Most of the chapter, however, attempts to understand culture in conjunction with Edmund Burke, who, as Eagleton writes, "[Understands] culture [as] more fundamental than law or politics" (65). The power that culture possesses can act in productive and destructive ways. Eagleton develops this point by placing Burke in conversation with German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, T.S. Eliot, and near the end of the chapter, Raymond Williams. By doing so, Eagleton can address several interesting but well-worn points of conversation: high and low culture, self-actualization through culture, cultural elitism, and cultural production. What I hope is apparent, is the size and scope of Eagleton's analysis. Despite the lack of an overarching thesis about culture, Eagleton's quirky even frenetic analytical approach is advantageous but pleasant to read.

[Ignacio Unamuno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terry Eagleton es un filósofo de pura cepa marxista. Cualquiera podría notarlo leyendo las durísimas críticas que arremete contra las izquierdas del siglo XXI. Quizás el momento más álgido de este libro sea su mirada suspicaz sobre los predicadores del multiculturalismo. Es especial porque no lo hace desde una ideología conservadora, sino siendo un fiel partidario de la agenda izquierdista. Siempre es grato leer autocríticas, en vez de mutuos ataques ideológicos.

En pocas palabras, se puede resumir este libro como un intento de analizar el concepto de “cultura”. En varios capítulos, desarrolla una especie de historia conceptual. La “cultura” que él analiza es la que involucra a las artes, a los libros, a la educación. Comienza con las ideas ilustradas y románticas que exaltaron la cultura. Más adelante, recurre a críticos como Burke y Oscar Wilde. Lo que Eagleton dice sobre Wilde vale completamente la pena, pues presenta una postura interesante contra los que quieren politizar las obras de arte. De ahí, procede el filósofo marxista católico a considerar la metamorfosis de lo cultural a causa del capitalismo.

La prosa de Eagleton es óptima. Este breve libro se lee en cuestión de horas, si no, de pocos días. Pero hay un aspecto confuso que creo que se debió cuidar: a pesar de que el libro versa sobre lo “cultural” en un sentido artístico, Eagleton no puede evitar meterse con el concepto de “cultura” en sentido de “grupos étnicos”, o “tradiciones nacionales”, o “cosmovisiones”. Ambos conceptos son distintos, a pesar de que compartan una única palabra. Y creo que Eagleton pierde a sus lectores cuando salta de uno a otro significado sin ser cauteloso. Por lo demás, la claridad de la prosa ayuda a recuperar el hilo.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a book with such a simple title, Terry Eagleton's account of culture is very hard to rate, as it manages to exhilarate and exasperate in equal measure. In his preface, Eagleton writes that his book "sacrifices any strict unity of argument in order to approach its subject from a number of different perspectives"—which is fine, but the quality and usefulness of those perspectives varies wildly from chapter to chapter. The first one, "Culture and Civilisation", is very informative and very funny: five stars. The second, "Postmodern Prejudices", is a rant that could have been over and done with in two or three sentences instead of nineteen pages: one star. Chapters 3 and 4 are well-argued, giving interesting analyses of the work and/or lives of Edmund Burke, Johann Gottfried Herder, and Oscar Wilde: four stars each. The fourth chapter, "From Herder to Hollywood", is the most ambitious, but it delivers a plethora of details instead of a clear argument: three stars. The conclusion, "The Hubris of Culture", is another rant. Three stars on average, then, with the number far from telling the whole story.