Terry Eagleton in his book “Literary Theory,” builds a case for the historicist position.

His definition of what is literature, what is the job of the literary critic and his argument
against the formalist position. Eagleton does not view literature as purely formal, which
he sees as an “empty sort of definition (Eagleton, 8)” because the definition of literature
should be the nature of what is written not be how someone decides to read (Eagleton, 7).
In his definition of literature, Eagleton believes that literature is constituted of value-
judgments, which are related to social ideologies one social group maintains power over
others (Eagleton, 14). Eagleton believes that he sees literature for what it actually is—a
political instrument in the hands of the upper class. He sees the rise of English literature
in tandem with the “failure of religion” because religion was “an extremely effective
form of ideological control (Eagleton, 20).” As religion began to wane, English and
literature became the means for salvation. He quotes George Gordon, who was an early
professor of English Literature at Oxford, saying “England is sick, and….English
literature must save it. The church having failed, and social remedies being slow, English
literature has now a triple function: still I suppose, to delight and instruct us, but also, and
above all to save our souls and heal the state (Eagleton, 20).” Eagleton doesn’t see
literature as just art, but “a whole alternative ideology….a political force” (Eagleton, 17).
He would go on to explain that with the fall of religion, the upper class still desired to
maintain ideological, political and social control. This was the task of literature because
before religion was a “pacifying influence, fostering meekness, self sacrifice and the
contemplative inner life (20).” All these were seem in one sense as virtues, but in another
sense they were characteristics that the upper class wanted the lower classes to embody.
Literature served as the suitable replacement because of it’s ‘humanizing’ pursuit, its
potential to remedy political bigotry and ideological extremism, and its ability “promote
sympathy and fellow felling among all classes (22).” In essence, Eagleton views literature
as a political instrument for the upper class to keep the lower classes pacified. He
exemplifies this in the example saying that the lower classes “instead of working to
change such conditions, you can fulfill someone’s desire for a fuller life by handing them
Pride and prejudice” (23).

The role of the Literary theorists, critics and teachers task “is to preserve this discourse,
extend and elaborate it as necessary defend it from other forms of discourse, initiate
newcomers into it and determine whether or not they have successfully mastered it. (175)
This is because the departments of literature are part of this ideological apparatus of the
modern capitalist state (174).