“Definition of Literature”
Eagleton observes, "But even if treating discourse ' non-pragmatically' is part of what is meant by ' literature,' then it follows from this 'definition' that literature cannot be in fact be 'objectively' defined. It leaves the definition of literature up to how somebody decides to read, not to the nature of what is written." Owing to the subjective interpretations of literary work, there would not single scientific definition of literature. This reality implies that readers are predominantly when reading and construing literary compositions. Nonetheless, some readers may avoid non-pragmatism in the courses of their perusals. The readers' inability to stick to pragmatism, although is the best approach when dealing with literature, underscores the challenge of narrowing down the definition of literature by taking non-pragmatism into account.
Richards’ Study
Eagleton describes, "In his famous study Practical Criticism (1929), the Cambridge critic I.A Richards sought to demonstrate just how whimsical and subjective literary value-judgments could actually be by giving his undergraduates a set of poems, withholding from the titles and authors' names, and asking them to evaluate them. The resulting judgments, notoriously, where highly variable: time-honoured poets were marked down and obscure authors celebrated." The result of the investigation is ironic: the famous poets would be rated highly whereas the unpopular poets were rated lowly. Concealing of the authors and titles is beneficial in the study for it eliminates unconscious bias which could have skewed the result. Young readers are conditioned to accepted specific individuals as great poets even in cases where some of those poets' works are no longer relevant to the reader's generation. The conditioning makes it problematic for readers to accept other individuals are great poets.
Irony of Freud’s Theory
Engels compares Marx and Freud ideologies: "If Marx looked at the consequences of our need to labour in terms of the social relations, social classes and forms of politics which it entailed, Freud looks at its implications for the psychical life. The paradox or contradiction on which his work rests is that we come to be what we are only by a massive repression of the elements which have gone into our making. We are not of course conscious of this, any more than for Marx men and women are generally conscious of the social processes which determine their lives." Repressed elements should not define individuals who have suppressed them. Furthermore, some aspects cannot be repressed entirely because they are shaped by the prevailing social circumstances which are present in individuals' lives. Freud's paradoxical argument is attributed to his overlooking of social factors which directly impact the psychical sphere.
The Irony of Animals
Engels observes, "One feature which distinguishes human beings from the other animals is that for evolutionary reasons we are born almost entirely helpless and are wholly reliant for our survival on the care of the more mature members of the species, usually our parents. We are all born 'prematurely.' Without such immediate, unceasing care we would die very quickly." Usually humans are deemed superior to the animals; however, in terms of evolution, animals depict superiority in terms of how they quickly become independent soon after their births. Therefore, the animals' degree of helplessness is relatively lower than that of humans at birth. If humans were utterly superior to animals they would depict strength and autonomy as soon as they are born.
The Irony of “Female Oedipalization”
Engels remarks, " 'Castration,' far from prohibiting her incestuous desire as with the boy, is what makes it possible in the first place. Moreover the girl, to enter into the Oedipus complex, must change her 'love-object' from mother to father, whereas the boy has merely to carry on loving the mother; and since a change of love-objects is a more complex, difficult affair, this too raises a problem about female oedipalization." Freud's arguments concerning the dissolution of the Oedipus complex in females is ironic because the girl is not terrified of castration. Freud is blatantly sexist in his argument concerning the girls' Oedipal complex for he does not demonstrate the link between the females' fear of castration and the dissolution of the complex; thus, Freud's portrayal of the males' and females' Oedipal complex is contradictory.
