From the first pages of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff presents himself to readers as a grumpy and exotic figure. It is ambiguous what can be attributed to his unpleasant behavior and behavior. Is it his exoticism, the mistreatment he suffered as a child, or a bit of both? When asked to provide an explanation for Heathcliff's character, or lack thereof, the text seems to provide two options. The first suggests that Heathcliff has bad blood and that the introduction of this foreign street urchin to Wuthering Heights is the sole catalyst for the hardships befalling its inhabitants. The second states that Heathcliff is simply a victim of circumstance. Of course, this text is far from explicit, and the nature/nurture dilemma is more complicated than the two listed choices imply. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Prolific literary critic Terry Eagleton elevates the nature versus nurture debate to a nature versus society debate. He strives to place this novel's seemingly remote setting in a social context, focusing on the social and economic structures at play. Her discussion is particularly interested in the ways in which Heathcliff's disruption of this social order colors his relationships with the other characters, particularly Catherine and Hindley. He explains these relationships primarily through a Marxist critique of the text. When seeking an explanation for Heathcliff's behavior that neither entirely blames him nor absolves him of his moral crime, Eagleton's Marxist exploration provides a more definitive answer than can be found in the text alone. Initially, the scene near the beginning of the novel depicts an altercation between Heathcliff and Hindley over Hindley's colt and asks readers to speculate whether or not Heathcliff's behavior may be related to his foreign origins. In this passage, Bronte juxtaposes Hindley's abuse of Heathcliff, with dialogue full of racially derogatory diction. However, while Hindley's words are hurtful and potentially harmful, they also almost foreshadow Heathcliff's future vengeful behavior. When Heathcliff attempts to retrieve Hindley's colt, his adoptive brother strikes him, calling him a "gypsy" and a "beggar intruder" (Bronte 54). The language that Hindley uses appears to be cruel and unfounded when directed towards a young boy, however, perhaps Heathcliff is actually the “little devil” that Hindley claims to be (54). It is confusing whether or not the author believes Heathcliff's foreign presence, and perhaps a penchant for destruction, or Hindley's abuse as the cause of the tragedy that befalls this family and their estate. Eagleton nearly absolves the infant Heathcliff of any intentional destruction, but asserts that the boy's introduction to the Heights disrupts an already tenuous social order. She states that Heathcliff is “inserted” into the family structure as an “alien,” emerging from an “ambivalent domain of darkness” outside the domestic system of the Heights (397). Eagleton theorizes that it is not Heathcliff's otherness itself that unsettles the Earnshaw family, but the fact that a foreign presence is introduced into a defined, yet fragile, social structure. Although Earnshaw tries to incorporate Heathcliff into the fold, Hindley does his best to ensure that his adopted brother is made an outcast. He does this using violence which then turns into negligence. The violence that Heathcliff “unintentionally unleashes is turned against him: he is driven out of Hindley, culturally deprived, reduced to the status of a farm labourer”. Hindley deliberately tries to. 2016