Why Was the Scrutiny project an Absurd Movement in the Context of “The Rise of English?”

Answer

Why was the scrutiny project an absurd movement in the context of “The Rise of English?”

Terry Eagleton (1943– Present) wrote “The Rise of English” in 1983. It explains how English became a serious subject. Eagleton tells how the Scrutiny group, led by F. R. Leavis, tried to protect culture through English. But Eagleton also shows why this project was finally unrealistic and absurd.

Idealist but Powerless: The Scrutiny group wanted to save society by reading books. They believed literature would fight “mass civilization” and modern evils. But the reality was different, as stated below:

“…there was never any serious consideration of actually trying to change such a society.”

They thought reading could solve big social problems, which looked foolish.

Small Elite, Not All People: The Scrutineers only trained a few students. They hoped these students would carry the “torch of culture.” But this was “elitist.” Eagleton says,

“The Scrutiny case was inescapably elitist: it betrayed a profound ignorance and distrust of the capacities of those not fortunate enough to have read English at Downing College.”

This idea left out most people and ignored their value.

Wrong Belief in Literature’s Power: They thought reading good books could make people better. They said it gave “rich, complex, mature” values. But Eagleton questions: “Was it really true that literature could roll back the deadening effects of industrial labour?” Even some cruel people, like war criminals, read high literature. So, literature does not always improve people.

Narrow Reading Style: Scrutiny used “close reading” to judge texts. But this ignored history and society. Eagleton says it led to “a ‘reification’ of the literary work.” This means they treated texts like dead objects. They read words but forgot where the words came from.

In short, the Scrutiny project started with deep moral hope. But it failed to change real life. It ignored politics, trusted only a few readers, and gave literature a false power. Eagleton shows why