Interview with Terry Eagleton at New Statesman:
There's a good deal of nostalgia in your new book, The Task of the Critic, for the "socialist culture" of the Seventies.
What's
wrong with a bit of nostalgia between friends? I think nostalgia
sometimes gets too much of a bad press. One of Walter Benjamin's
extraordinary achievements, for example, was to make a kind of
revolutionary virtue out of a certain concept of looking back, or
nostalgia. As a tutor at Oxford during that period, I could see all
kinds of energies that simply had no outlet - all kinds of radical
impulses that were rather inchoate, but certainly present. So I think
nostalgia is justified to some extent.
There was at least
one outlet for those energies, though: the Marxism seminar you ran at
Wadham College, which you describe as a "hostel for battered leftists".
The left took even more of a battering in the intervening 30-odd years,
didn't it?
I think the Gramsci formula about pessimism of
the intellect and optimism of the will gets at something. But I was
struck, when I spoke recently at King's College London, by the
extraordinarily diverse number of militant projects and campaigns that
were being either conducted or planned. It was like being back in the
Seventies, or the late Sixties.
One of the leftist Oxford
students from the earlier period whom you mention by name in the book
is Christopher Hitchens. What do you make of his political trajectory?
I
just turned down the offer of a public debate with him in the States.
I've said what I want to say, and we wouldn't have got anywhere - it
would only have been a sort of bloodsport.
Even then, Christopher was mesmerised by the idea of America. He always wanted a bigger scene.
What
was definitive for him, politically, was the fatwa against Salman
Rushdie in 1989. I think that was
the turning point. The deep
Islamophobic impulse he has stems from that. But he's still an
idiosyncratic mixture of various political attitudes that don't always
go together.
And I wouldn't for a moment underestimate his
formidable eloquence and intellectual resources. I think he is a superb
writer. But I think that the radical was always at war with the public
school boy who
wanted to succeed.
Two years ago, you had a very public disagreement with Hitchens's close friend Martin Amis.
For
a long time, they were quite divergent politically: Hitchens was still
some kind of socialist and Amis was vehemently anti-communist in an
uninteresting, cold war kind of way. But they've since converged. And
now they're old cronies backing each other up - instant responses to
attacks on the other.
I'm interested in the way a whole stratum
of the liberal literati (Rushdie, to some extent Ian McEwan, A C
Grayling, obviously Amis and Hitchens) - the very people you'd have
expected to be guardians of the liberal flame of tolerance and
understanding - have, at the very first assault, rushed into these
caricatured postures driven by panic. I'm very struck by how those who
are making ugly, illiberal, supremacist noises about the superiority of
the west are precisely the sort of literary and liberal characters from
whom you'd expect more imagination, openness and sensitivity.
Do you still read those writers?
I
liked early Amis a lot, but I stopped reading him some time ago. I
admire Hitchens on literary topics - I think he is very astute. McEwan,
I read a bit. But I suppose it's more the ideological phenomenon that
they represent together that interests me.
More