Eagleton thinks that the "most efficient form of censorship" is "the perpectuation of mass illiteracy" (58). And to acheive this goal, people from certain groups or classes are excluded from educational system. This reminds me of the article I read and reported last semester, "Cultural Criticism," written by Gerald Graff and Bruce Robbins. Obviously, some cultural critics view literacy in another perspective.
In late-nineteen century, national literature was to cultivate the masses. However, this idea does not completely contradict to what Eagleton argues. Some educators in that time advocated that native tongue should be a better language to educate the "raw uncultivated" immigrants from European countries, so the "classical languages" should be replaced by English.
Eagleton also thinks that "literacy" is "determined by aethetic ideology." The languages a certain ideology "ratified" are, for example, Frensh and Latin. These languages might be what cultural critics call as "classical languages." A Marxist like Eagleton looks at literacy in one perspective while cultural critics another. But as far as I am concerned, they all show their concerns about the problem that literature written in a certain language can be distant from the people who are minorities or in lower class.
I do not quite understand why Eagleton complicates Marx's idea of "mode of production." I think GMP, LMP, GI, AuI and AI share much in common, (Maybe I am wrong!) and Eagleton's category make a simple idea become frightening to me. Why does he complicate Marx's idea? Is it really a better approach to explain human history?