deconstruction literature review

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Uncategorized › Deconstruction

Deconstruction

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on March 22, 2016 • ( 10 )

Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings, rather than being a unified, logical whole. As J. Hillis Miller, the preeminent American deconstructionist, has explained in an essay entitled Stevens’ Rock and Criticism as Cure (1976), “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air.”

Deconstruction was both created and has been profoundly influenced by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida, who coined the term deconstruction, argues that in Western culture, people tend to think and express their thoughts in terms of binary oppositions (white / black, masculine / feminine, cause /effect, conscious /unconscious, presence / absence, speech writing). Derrida suggests these oppositions are hierarchies in miniature, containing one term that Western culture views as positive or superior and another considered negative or inferior, even if only slightly so. Through deconstruction, Derrida aims to erase the boundary between binary oppositions—and to do so in such a way that the hierarchy implied by the oppositions is thrown into question.

Although its ultimate aim may be to criticize Western logic, deconstruction arose as a response to structuralism and formalism. Structuralists believed that all elements of human culture, including literature, may be understood as parts of a system of signs. Derrida did not believe that structuralists could explain the laws governing human signification and thus provide the key to understanding the form and meaning of everything from an African village to Greek myth to a literary text. He also rejected the structuralist belief that texts have identifiable “centres” of meaning–a belief structuralists shared with formalists.

Formalist critics, such as the New Critics, assume that a work of literature is a freestanding, self-contained object whose meaning can be found in the complex network of relations between its parts (allusions, images, rhythms, sounds, etc.). Deconstructionists, by contrast, see works in terms of their undecidability. They reject the formalist view that a work of literature is demonstrably unified from beginning to end, in one certain way, or that it is organized around a single centre that ultimately can be identified. As a result, deconstructionists see texts as more radically heterogeneous than do formalists. Formalists ultimately make sense of the ambiguities they find in a given text, arguing that every ambiguity serves a definite, meaningful, and demonstrable literary function. Undecidability, by contrast, is never reduced, let alone mastered in deconsctruction. Though a deconstructive reading can reveal the incompatible possibilities generated by the text, it is impossible for the reader to settle on any permanent meanings.

Deconstruction is a poststructuralist theory, based largely but not exclusively on the writings of Derrida. It is in the first instance a philosophical theory and a theory directed towards the (re)reading of philosophical writings. Its impact on literature, mediated in North America largely through the influences of theorists at Yale University, is based 1) on the fact that deconstruction sees all writing as a complex historical, cultural process rooted in the relations of texts to each other and in the institutions and conventions of writing, and 2) on the sophistication and intensity of its sense that human knowledge is not as controllable or as convincing as Western thought would have it and that language operates in subtle and often contradictory ways, so that certainty will always elude us.

Literary and Critical Theory

Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Deconstruction

Introduction, introductory texts.

Anthologies
Biographies and Histories
Operation, Occasions, Consequences
Deconstruction and Analytic Philosophy
Deconstruction and Architecture
Texts by Founders
Texts by Commentators
Deconstruction and Ethics
Deconstruction and Feminism
Deconstruction and Institutions
Deconstruction and Law
Texts by Commentators and Subsequent Critics
Deconstruction and Politics
Deconstruction and Postcolonialism
Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis
Deconstruction and Religion
Deconstruction and Rhetoric
Deconstruction and Technology
Deconstruction and Visual Arts

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Postcolonialism and Digital Humanities
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Deconstruction by Joshua Kates LAST REVIEWED: 26 July 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0010

Deconstruction initially translates a term coined by the French philosopher (and arch-deconstructionist) Jacques Derrida. Rather than its current common usage of analyzing or criticizing something intensively, deconstruction indicates arriving at a new thought or perspective by taking apart an already existing one (or taking apart an already existing one thanks to framing it through something new)—thus de- con -struction. In the anglophone context, deconstruction soon became the signature of the literary scholar and Belgian émigré Paul de Man, as well as of Derrida. Initially de Man and Derrida were predominantly read in departments of literature; consequently, deconstruction was often viewed, and sometimes still is, as a technique for reading and interpreting texts. The so-called Yale School, including J. Hillis Miller, Geoffrey Hartmann, and Harold Bloom—important scholars in their own right—were associated with literary deconstruction, though not each of them would describe his own work in this way. At this same period, along with the development of literary deconstruction, what became known as “American Continental Philosophy” arose, focusing on Derrida’s writings in particular. Though initially including a small band of researchers, today such philosophy is widespread. Derrida’s work is discussed extensively by these scholars, while it currently has less visibility in the literary context. Deconstruction and some analogue of its operation are, however, today not confined to just the fields of literature and philosophy. Sometimes under its own steam, but also in part owing to Derrida’s shifting interests, deconstruction became, and in part remains, a working approach in fields such as architecture, religious studies, law, feminist and political theory, as well as others.

Owing to its taking apart of an already existing standpoint, deconstruction, by definition, makes reference to approaches and texts other than its own. In its early stages, these precursors were largely found in philosophy (especially phenomenology) and structuralism, fields with which many working literary critics (as well as legal scholars, architects, and others) were not especially familiar. Thus the need for introductions was initially especially acute and these continue to appear sporadically, now often with the aim of including Derrida’s later writing as well as his earliest; his 1954 The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy (in which some of his axial concerns are already visible; see Derrida 2003 , cited under Texts by Founders ) having been published in English only in 2003 and in France in 1990. Bennington 1993 , Lüdemann 2014 , and Smith 2005 all focus on Derridean deconstruction, with Bennington giving a broad overview organized by topic, and Lüdemann and Smith offering more detailed textual exegesis. Culler 1982 , Currie 2013 , Leitch 1983 , and Norris 1991 treat deconstruction’s literary avatars, as well as its philosophical ones. Leitch offers a more experimental mode of exegesis and Currie offers a general evaluation of the movement.

Bennington, Geoffrey. “Derridabase.” In Jacques Derrida . Edited by G. Bennington, and J. Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Bennington’s portion of Jacques Derrida, “Derridabase,” remains one of the best introduction to Derrida’s work in English. It presents a series of clearly written presentations of many of Derrida’s key concepts and major themes, which preserves a good deal of their complexity. (This is one of a number of volumes that Derrida has published with friends or former students, in which his contribution accompanies, but remains entirely separate from, theirs.)

Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.

A wide-ranging introduction to deconstruction, drawing on Culler’s own extensive previous work in structuralist methodologies. It includes discussions of Derrida’s work extending up until the early 1980s as well as of other critics who take a deconstructive bent.

Currie, Mark. The Invention of Deconstruction . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

DOI: 10.1057/9781137307033

Currie’s is in part a highly self-conscious retrospective intellectual history of the emergence of literary deconstruction in the United States, focusing equally on Derrida and de Man. It includes discussions of key texts as well as key concepts. Though perhaps challenging for the complete beginner, it both corrects many still common misunderstandings and supplies a wide-ranging evaluation of this project as a whole.

Leitch, Vincent B. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction . New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

Appearing a year after Culler’s work, Leitch’s is an equally broad survey, which, in part, canvasses a different set of literary critics, some affiliated with the journal boundary 2 .

Lüdemann, Susanne. Politics of Deconstruction: A New Introduction to Jacques Derrida . Translated by Erik Butler. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014.

A more recent introduction that canvasses both Derrida’s initial foray into deconstruction and his later, largely political works, in which he speaks of justice as indeconstructible. One highlight is its more extended and granular interpretation of Derrida’s Of Grammatology than its predecessors (see Derrida 1976 , cited under Operation, Occasions, Consequences ).

Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction : Theory and Practice . New York: Routledge, 1991.

Originally published in 1982, this is a revised edition, now containing an appendix on Derrida’s important methodological text, “Afterword.” Norris is an exceptionally clear writer who brings in moments in the history of philosophy in his treatment in an accessible way.

Smith, James K. Derrida: Live Theory . London: Continuum, 2005.

Written in an almost telegraphic style, this volume provides an exceptionally clear presentation of key phases of Derrida’s thinking, including important debates and a treatment of his work’s reception.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Literary and Critical Theory »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Achebe, Chinua
Adorno, Theodor
Aesthetics, Post-Soul
Affect Studies
Afrofuturism
Agamben, Giorgio
Anzaldúa, Gloria E.
Apel, Karl-Otto
Appadurai, Arjun
Badiou, Alain
Baudrillard, Jean
Belsey, Catherine
Benjamin, Walter
Bettelheim, Bruno
Bhabha, Homi K.
Biopower, Biopolitics and
Black Atlantic
Blanchot, Maurice
Bloom, Harold
Bourdieu, Pierre
Brecht, Bertolt
Brooks, Cleanth
Caputo, John D.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh
Conversation Analysis
Cosmopolitanism
Creolization/Créolité
Crip Theory
Critical Theory
Cultural Materialism
de Certeau, Michel
de Man, Paul
de Saussure, Ferdinand
Deconstruction
Deleuze, Gilles
Derrida, Jacques
Dollimore, Jonathan
Du Bois, W.E.B.
Eagleton, Terry
Eco, Umberto
Ecocriticism
English Colonial Discourse and India
Environmental Ethics
Fanon, Frantz
Feminism, Transnational
Foucault, Michel
Frankfurt School
Freud, Sigmund
Frye, Northrop
Genet, Jean
Girard, René
Global South
Goldberg, Jonathan
Gramsci, Antonio
Greimas, Algirdas Julien
Grief and Comparative Literature
Guattari, Félix
Habermas, Jürgen
Haraway, Donna J.
Hartman, Geoffrey
Hawkes, Terence
Hebdige, Dick
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hemispheric Studies
Hermeneutics
Hillis-Miller, J.
Holocaust Literature
Human Rights and Literature
Humanitarian Fiction
Hutcheon, Linda
Žižek, Slavoj
Imperial Masculinity
Irigaray, Luce
Jameson, Fredric
JanMohamed, Abdul R.
Johnson, Barbara
Kagame, Alexis
Kolodny, Annette
Kristeva, Julia
Lacan, Jacques
Laclau, Ernesto
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe
Laplanche, Jean
Leavis, F. R.
Levinas, Emmanuel
Levi-Strauss, Claude
Literature, Dalit
Lonergan, Bernard
Lotman, Jurij
Lukács, Georg
Lyotard, Jean-François
Metz, Christian
Morrison, Toni
Mouffe, Chantal
Nancy, Jean-Luc
Neo-Slave Narratives
New Historicism
New Materialism
Partition Literature
Peirce, Charles Sanders
Philosophy of Theater, The
Postcolonial Theory
Post-Structuralism
Psychoanalytic Theory
Queer Medieval
Queer Theory
Race and Disability
Rancière, Jacques
Ransom, John Crowe
Reader Response Theory
Rich, Adrienne
Richards, I. A.
Ronell, Avital
Rosenblatt, Louse
Said, Edward
Schleiermacher, Friedrich
Settler Colonialism
Socialist/Marxist Feminism
Stiegler, Bernard
Structuralism
Theatre of the Absurd
Thing Theory
Tolstoy, Leo
Tomashevsky, Boris
Translation
Transnationalism in Postcolonial and Subaltern Studies
Virilio, Paul
Warren, Robert Penn
White, Hayden
Wittig, Monique
World Literature
Zimmerman, Bonnie
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[162.248.224.4]
162.248.224.4

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

19 What Is Deconstruction?

At its core, deconstruction argues that all texts and ideas are composed of a series of oppositions or binary pairs, such as good/evil, presence/absence, or male/female. These binary pairs are often assumed to be stable and objective, but deconstruction asserts that they are actually unstable and subjective, and that true shared meaning is an impossible goal. This is why I have placed “the gap” at the center of our target.

Deconstruction involves closely analyzing a text or idea to reveal these underlying binary pairs and the ways in which they are unstable and contradictory. It seeks to undermine the notion that language can provide objective meaning or truth by exposing the ways in which language undercuts its own meaning, privileges certain meanings, and contains hierarchies of meaning.

According to deconstruction, there is no definitive interpretation of a text or idea, but rather multiple possible meanings that are always in flux. Deconstruction also emphasizes the role of the reader or interpreter in shaping the meaning of a text, arguing that the reader’s own biases and assumptions play a crucial role in the way a text is understood.

Deconstruction has been widely influential in literary and cultural studies, as well as in philosophy, and has been used to analyze a wide range of texts and ideas. It has also been the subject of much debate and criticism, with some arguing that it is overly skeptical or nihilistic in its approach to meaning and truth.

Learning Outcomes

Consider a wide range of alternatives to a habitual way of approaching texts. (CLO 1)
Understand how formal elements in literary texts create meaning within the context of culture and literary discourse (CLO 2.1)
Apply knowledge of formal elements of literature and vocabulary in analysis and discussion of literature (CLO 2.3)
Understand how to perform close readings of texts (CLO 4.2)
Be exposed to the diversity of human experience, thought, politics, and conditions through the application of critical theory (CLO 6.4)
Understand that interpretation is inherently political, and that it reveals assumptions and expectations about value, truth, and the human experience (CLO 7.1)

A Note about Structuralism (and Post-Structuralism)

While we will not use structuralism in this class, it’s important to be aware of its existence because deconstruction, also called post-structuralism, is a response to structuralism. Structuralism is a theoretical approach that emerged in the social sciences and humanities in the mid-20th century. It views phenomena as systems of interrelated parts or elements, and emphasizes the underlying structures and patterns that shape those phenomena.

In literature, for example, a structuralist analysis might focus on the underlying rules or patterns that govern the construction of a narrative or a character’s development. In linguistics, structuralists study the grammar and syntax of languages to identify the underlying rules that govern their structure.

Structuralism is often associated with the work of French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who applied its principles to the study of cultures and societies. According to Lévi-Strauss, cultures are structured like languages, with underlying systems of symbols and meanings that shape the way individuals think, communicate, and behave.

One of the key principles of structuralism is the idea that meaning is not inherent in individual elements, but rather emerges from the relationships and patterns that exist between them. Structuralists also emphasize the importance of context and the ways in which different elements are interdependent and cannot be understood in isolation.

While structuralism has been influential in a variety of fields, it has also been criticized for its tendency to prioritize abstract systems over individual experiences and for its potential to oversimplify complex phenomena.

Structuralism isn’t really used in literary criticism anymore, though it continues to be used in linguistics and anthropology. Post-structuralism/deconstruction are more popular critical methods for literary scholars, so we will focus our time in this section on deconstruction. However, if you are interested in learning more, you can read Claude Levi-Strauss’s essay, “The Structural Study of Myth,” to see how this theory functions in relation to texts. We will not practice applying structuralism to a text; instead, we will work with application using deconstruction as our critical method.

An Excerpt from Deconstruction Scholarship

Hold on tight! As we learned in the introduction, deconstruction is about exposing the gaps in meaning. In the excerpt from a chapter below, Jaques Derrida tries to explain his concept of différance . Before you attempt to read Derrida, I recommend watching this video from philosophy professor Ellie Anderson.

From “Différance” by Jacques Derrida (1982) (translated by Alan Bass)

I will speak, therefore, of a letter. Of the first letter, if the alphabet, and most of the speculations which have ventured into it, are to be believed. I will speak, therefore, of the letter a , this initial letter which it apparently has been necessary to insinuate, here and there, into the writing of the word difference ; and to do so in the course of a writing on writing, and also of a writing within writing whose different trajectories thereby find themselves, at certain very determined points, intersecting with a kind of gross spelling mistake, a lapse in the discipline and law which regulate writing and keep it seemly. One can always, de facto or de jure , erase or reduce this lapse in spelling, and find it (according to situations to be analyzed each time, although amounting to the same), grave or unseemly, that is, to follow the most ingenuous hypothesis, amusing. Thus, even if one seeks to pass over such an infraction in silence, the interest that one takes in it can be recognized and situated in advance as prescribed by the mute irony, the inaudible misplacement, of this literal permutation. One can always act as if it made no difference. And I must state here and now that today’s discourse will be less a justification of, and even less an apology for, this silent lapse in spelling, than a kind of insistent intensification of its play. On the other hand, I will have to be excused if I refer, at least implicitly, to some of the texts I have ventured to publish. This is precisely because I would like to attempt, to a certain extent, and even though in principle and in the last analysis this is impossible, and impossible for essential reasons, to reassemble in a sheaf the different directions in which I have been able to utilize what I would call provisionally the word or concept of différance , or rather to let it impose itself upon me in its neographism, although as we shall see, différance is literally neither a word nor a concept. And I insist upon the word sheaf for two reasons. On the one hand, I will not be concerned, as I might have been, with describing a history and narrating its stages, text by text, context by context, demonstrating the economy that each time imposed this graphic disorder; rather, I will be concerned with the general system of this economy. On the other hand, the word sheaf seems to mark more appropriately that the assemblage to be proposed has the complex structure of a weaving, an interlacing which permits the different threads and different lines of meaning—or of force—to go off again in different directions, just as it is always ready to tie itself up with others. Therefore, preliminarily, let me recall that this discreet graphic intervention, which neither primarily nor simply aims to shock the reader or the grammarian, came to be formulated in the course of a written investigation of a question about writing. Now it happens, I would say in effect, that this graphic difference (a instead of e), this marked difference between two apparently vocal notations, between two vowels, remains purely graphic: it is read, or it is written, but it cannot be heard. It cannot be apprehended in speech, and we will see why it also bypasses the order of apprehension in general. It is offered by a mute mark, by a tacit monument, I would even say by a pyramid, thinking not only of the form of the letter when it is printed. as a capital, but also of the text in Hegel’s Encyclopedia in which the body of the sign is compared to the Egyptian Pyramid. The a of différance, thus, is not heard; it remains silent, secret and discreet as a tomb: oikesis. And thereby let us anticipate the delineation of a site, the familial residence and tomb of the proper 1 in which is produced, by différance, the economy of death. This stone (provided that one knows how to decipher its inscription) is not far from announcing the death of the tyrant. 2 And it is a tomb that cannot even be made to resonate. In effect, I cannot let you know through my discourse, through the speech being addressed at this moment to the French Society of Philosophy, what difference I am talking about when I talk about it. I can speak of this graphic difference only through a very indirect discourse on writing, and on the condition that I specify, each time, whether I am referring to difference with an e or différance with an a. Which will not simplify things today, and will give us all, you and me, a great deal of trouble, if, at least, we wish to understand each other. In any event, the oral specifications that I will provide (when I say “with an e” or “with an a”) will refer uncircumventably to a written text that keeps watch over my discourse, to a text that I am holding in front of me, that I will read, and toward which I necessarily will attempt to direct your hands and your eyes. We will be able neither to do without the passage through a written text, nor to avoid the order of the disorder produced within it—and this, first of all, is what counts for me. The pyramidal silence of the graphic difference between the e and the a can function, of course, only within the system of ptionetic writing, and within the language and grammar which is as historically linked to phonetic writing as it is to the entire culture inseparable from phonetic writing. But I would say that this in itself (the silence that functions within only a so-called phonetic writing) quite opportunely conveys or reminds us that, contrary to a very widespread prejudice, there is no phonetic writing. There is no purely and rigorously phonetic writing. So-called phonetic writing, by all rights and in principle, and not only due to an empirical or technical insufficiency, can function only by admitting into its system nonphonetic “signs” (punctuation, spacing, etc.). And an examination of the structure and necessity of these nonphonetic signs quickly reveals that they can barely tolerate the concept of the sign itself. Better, the play of difference, which, as Saussure reminded us, is the condition for the possibility and functioning of every sign, is in itself a silent play. Inaudible is the difference between two phonemes which alone permits them to be and to operate as such. The inaudible opens up the apprehension of two present phonemes such as they present themselves. If there is no purely phonetic writing, it is that there is no purely phonetic phone. The difference which establishes phonemes and lets them be heard remains in and of itself inaudible, in every sense of the word. It will be objected, for the same reasons, that graphic difference itself vanishes into the night, can never be sensed as a full term, but rather extends an invisible relationship, the mark of an inapparent relationship between two spectacles. Doubtless. But, from this point of view, that the difference marked in the “differ( )nce” between the e and the a eludes both vision and hearing perhaps happily suggests that here we must be permitted to refer to an order which no longer belongs to sensibility. But neither can it belong to intelligibility, to the ideality which is not fortuitously affiliated with the objectivity of theorein or understanding. 3 Here, therefore, we must let ourselves refer to an order that resists the opposition, one of the founding oppositions of philosophy, between the sensible and the intelligible. The order which resists this opposition, and resists it because it transports it, is announced in a movement of différance (with an a) between two differences or two letters, a différance which belongs neither to the voice nor to writing in the usual sense, and which is located, as the strange space that will keep us together here for an hour, between speech and writing, and beyond the tranquil familarity which links us to one and the other, occasionally reassuring us in our illusion that they are two. What am I to do in order to speak of the a of différance? It goes without saying that it cannot be exposed. One can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present, manifest, that which can be shown, presented as something present, a being-present 4 in its truth, in the truth of a present or the presence of the present. Now if différance (and I also cross out the ) what makes possible the presentation of the being-present, it is never presented as such. It is never offered to the present. Or to anyone. Reserving itself, not exposing itself, in regular fashion it exceeds the order of truth at a certain precise point, but without dissimulating itself-as something, as a mysterious being, in the occult of a nonknowledge or in a hole with indeterminable borders (for example, in a topology of castration). 5 In every exposition it would be exposed to disappearing as disappearance. It would risk appearing: disappearing. So much so that the detours, locutions, and syntax in which I will often have to take recourse will resemble those of negative theology, occasionally even to the point of being indistinguishable from negative theology. Already we have had to delineate that différance is not, does not exist, is not a present-being (on) in any form; and we will be led to delineate also everything that it is not, that is, everything; and consequently that it has neither existence nor essence. It derives from no category of being, whether present or absent. And yet those aspects of différance which are thereby delineated are not theological, not even in the order of the most negative of negative theologies, which are always concerned with disengaging a superessentiality beyond the finite categories of essence and existence, that is, of presence, and always hastening to recall that God is refused the predicate of existence, only in order to acknowledge his superior, inconceivable, and ineffable mode of being. Such a development is not in question here, and this will be confirmed progressively. Différance is not only irreducible to any ontological or theological—ontotheological—reappropriation, but as the very opening of the space in which ontotheology—philosophy—produces its system and its history, it includes ontotheology, inscribing it and exceeding it without return. For the same reason there is nowhere to begin to trace the sheaf or the graphics of différance. For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a principal responsibility. The problematic of writing is opened by putting into question the value arkhe . 6 Also, by decision and as a rule of the game, if you will, turning these propositions back on themselves, we will be introduced to the thought of différance by the theme of strategy or the stratagem. By means of this solely strategic justification, I wish to underline that the efficacity of the thematic of différance may very well, indeed must, one day be superseded, lending itself not only to its own replacement, at least to enmeshing itself in a chain that in truth it never will have governed. Whereby, once again, it is not theological. I would say, first off, that différance, which is neither a word nor a concept, strategically seemed to me the most proper one to think, if not to master (thought, here, being that which is maintained in a certain necessary relationship with the structural limits of mastery) what is most irreducible about our “era.” Therefore I am starting, strategically, from the place and the time in which “we” are, even though in the last analysis my opening is not justifiable, since it is only on the basis of différance and its “history” that we can allegedly know who and where “we” are, and what the limits of an “era” might be. Even though différance is neither a word nor a concept, let us nevertheless attempt a simple and approximate semantic analysis that will take us to within sight of what is at stake. We know that the verb differer (Latin verb differre ) has two meanings which seem quite distinct; 7 for example in Littre they are the object of two separate articles. In this sense the Latin differre is not simply a translation of the Greek diapherein, and this will not be without consequences for us, linking our discourse to a particular language, and to a language that passes as less philosophical, less originally philosophical than the other. For the distribution of meaning in the Greek diapherein does not comport one of the two motifs of the Latin differre , to wit, the action of putting off until later, of taking into account, of taking account of time and of the forces of an operation that implies an economical calculation, a detour, a delay, a relay, a reserve, a representaton—concepts that I would summarize here in a word I have never used but that could be inscribed in this chain: temporization. Differer in this sense is to temporize, to take recourse consciously or unconsclously, in the temporal and temporizing mediation of a detour that suspends the accomplishment nor fulfillment of “desire” or “will,” and equally effects this suspension in a mode that annuls or tempers its own effect. And we will see, later how this temporization is also temporalization and the becoming-time of space and the becoming-space of time, the “originary constitution” of time and space, as metaphysics or transcendental phenomenology would say, to use the language that here is criticized and displaced. The other sense of differer is the more common and identifiable one: to be not identical, to be other, discernible, etc. When dealing with differen(ts)(ds), a word that can be written with a final ts or a final ds, as you will, whether it is a question of dissimilar otherness or of allergic and polemical otherness, an interval, a distance, spacing, must be produced between the elements other, and be produced with a certain perseverance in repetition. 8 Now the word difference (with an e) can never refer either to differer as temporization or to differends as polemos . 9 Thus the word différance (with an a) is to compensate economically—this loss of meaning, for différance can refer simultaneously to the entire configuration of its meanings. It is immediately and irreducibly polysemic, which will not be indifferent to the economy of my discourse here. In its polysemia this word, of course, like any meaning must defer to the discourse in which it occurs, its interpretive context; but in a way it defies deriving from the present participle (différant), thereby bringing us close to the very action of the verb differer, before it has even produced an effect constituted as something different or as difference (with an e). 10 In a conceptuality adhering to classical strictures “différance” would be said to designate constitutive, productive, and originary causality, the process of scission and division which would produce or constitute different things or differences. But because it brings us close to the infinitive and active kernel of differer, différance (with an a) neutralizes what the infinitive denotes as simply active, just as mouvance in our language does not simply mean the fact of moving, of moving oneself or of being moved. No more is resonance the act of resonating. We must consider that in the usage of our language the ending -anc e remains undecided between the active and the passive. And we will see why that which lets itself be designated différance is neither simply active nor simply passive, announcing or rather recalling something like, the middle voice, saying an operation that is not an operation, an operation that cannot be conceived either as passion or as the action of a subject on an object, or on the basis of the categories of agent or patient, neither on the basis of nor moving toward any of these terms. For the middle voice, a certain nontransitivity, may be what philosophy, at its outset, distributed into an active and a passive voice, thereby constituting itself by means of this repression. Différance as temporization, différance as spacing. How are they to be joined? Let us start, since we are already there, from the problematic of the sign and of writing. The sign is usually said to be put in the place of the thing itself, the present thing, “thing” here standing equally for meaning or referent. The sign represents the present in its absence. It takes the place of the present. When we cannot grasp or show the thing, state the present, the being-present, when the present cannot be presented, we signify, we go through the detour of the sign. We take or give signs. We signal. The sign, in this sense, is deferred presence. Whether we are concerned with the verbal or the written sign, with the monetary sign, or with electoral delegation and political representation, the circulation of signs defers the moment in which we can encounter the thing itself make it ours, consume or expend it, touch it, see it, intuit its presence. What I am describing here in order to define it is the classically determined structure of the sign in all the banality of its characteristics—signification as the différance of temporization. And this structure presupposes that the sign, which defers presence, is conceivable only on the basis of the presence that it defers and moving toward the deferred presence that it aims to reappropriate. According to this classical semiology, the substitution of the sign for the thing itself is both secondary and provisional: secondary due to an original and lost presence from which the sign thus derives; provisional as concerns this final and missing presence toward which the sign in this sense is a movement of mediation.

1. Translator’s Note: Throughout this book I will translate le propre as “the proper.” Derrida most offen intends all the senses of the word at once: that which is correct, as in le sens propre (proper, literal meaning), and that which is one’s own, that which may be owned, that which is legally, correctly owned–all the links between proper, property, and propriety. 2. TN. The last three sentences refer elliptically and playfully to the following ideas. Derrida first plays on the “silence” of the a in différance as being like a silent tomb, like a pyramid, like the pyramid to which Hegel compares the body of the sign. “Tomb” in Greek is oikesis, which is akin to the Greek oikos (house) from which the word “economy” derives (oikos) house and nemein–to manage). Thus Derrida speaks of the “economy of death” as the “familial residence and tomb of the proper.” Further, and more elliptically still, Derrida speaks of the tomb, which always bears an inscription in stone, announcing the death of the tyrant. This seems to refer to Hegel’s treatment of the Antigone story in the Phenomenology. It will be recalled that Antigone defies the tyrant Creon by burying her brother Polynices. Creon retaliates by having Antigone entombed. There she cheats the slow death that awaits her by hanging herseff. The tyrant Creon has a change of heart too late, and (after the suicides of his son and wife, his family) kills himseff. Thus family, death, inscription, tomb, law, economy. In a later work, Glas, Derrida analyzes Hegel’s treatment of the Antigone. 3. TN. “. . . not fortuitously affiliated with the objectivity of theorein or understanding.” A play on words has been lost in translation here, a loss that makes this sentence difficult to understand. In the previous sentence Derrida says that the difference between the e and the a of différance / différence can neither be seen nor heard. It is not a sensible–that is, relating to the senses–difference. But, he goes on to explain, neither is this an intelligible difference, for the very names by which we conceive of objective intelligibility are already in complicity with sensibility. Theorein–the Greek origin of “theory”–literally means “to look at,” to see; and the word Derrida uses for “understanding” here is entendement, the noun form of entendre, to hear. 4. TN. As in the past, etre (Sein) will be translated as Being. Etant (Seiendes) will be either beings or being, depending on the context. Thus, here etant-present is “being-present.” For a justification of this translation see Derrida, Writing and Différance, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), Translator’s Introduction, p. xvii. 5. TN. ” . . a hole with indeterminable borders (for example, in a topology of castration).” This phrase was added to “La Différance” for its publication in the French edition of this volume and refers to the polemic Derrida had already engaged (in Positions, elaborated further in le Facteur de la verite) with Jacques Lacan. For Derrida, Lacan’s “topology of castration,” which assigns the “hole” or lack to a place (“a hole with determinable borders”) repeats the metaphysical gesture (albeit a negative one) of making absence, the lack, the hole, a transcendental principle that can be pinned down as such, and can thereby govern a theoretical discourse. 6. TN. The Greek arkhe combines the values of a founding principle and of government by a controlling principle (e.g. archeology, monarchy) will propose here will not be elaborated simply as a philosophical discourse operating according to principles, postulates, axioms or definitions, and proceeding along the discursive lines of a linear order of reasons. In the delineation of différance everything is strategic and adventurous. Strategic because no transcendent truth present outside the field of writing can govern theologically the totality of the field. . Adventurous because this strategy is not a simple strategy in the sense that strategy orients tactics according to a final goal, a telos or theme of domination, a mastery and ultimate reappropriation of the development of the field. Finally, a strategy without finality, what might be called blind tactics or empirical wandering if the value of empiricism did not itself acquire its entire meaning in its opposition to philosophical responsibility. If there is a certain wandering in the tracing of différance, it no more follows the lines of philosophy of its symmetrical and integral inverse, empirical-logical discourse. The concept of play keeps itself beyond this opposition, announcing, on the eve of philosophy and beyond it, the unity of chance and necessity in calculations without end. 7. TN. In English the two distinct meanings of the Latin differre have become two separate words: to defer and to differ. 8. TN. The next few sentences will require some annotation, to be found in this note and the next two. In this sentence Derrida is pointing out that two words that sound exactly alike in French (differents, differends) refer to the sense of differre that implies spacing, otherness–difference in its usual English sense. Les differents are different things, les differends are differences of opinion, grounds for dispute–whence the references to allergy (from the Greek allos, other) and polemics. 9. TN. However, to continue the last note, difference (in French) does not convey the sense of active putting off, of deferring (différance in what would be its usual sense in French, if it were a word in common usage), or the sense of active polemical difference, actively differing with someone or something. (“Active” here, though, is not really correct for reasons that Derrida will explain below.) The point is that there is no noun-verb, no gerund for either sense in French. 10. TN. Such a gerund would normally be constructed from the present participle of the verb: differant. Curiously then, the noun différance suspends itself between the two senses of differant–deferring, differing. We might say that it defers differing, and differs from deferring, in and of itself. Here is a link to the translation.

Close Reading in Deconstruction

In New Criticism, we learned to do a close reading of a text that focused on looking for elements of the text that deonstrated complexity and contributed to unity. A deconstructive close reading is similar in practice, but instead, we want to emphasize the instability of meaning and the idea that texts contain contradictions.

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to perform a close reading of a text using deconstruction as your critical method:

1. Choose a Text: Select a text that you want to analyze closely. This could be a literary work, a philosophical essay, a political speech, or any other written or spoken material such as an advertisement or TikTok video.

2. Initial Reading: Begin by reading the text once through without any specific agenda. This reading helps you grasp the surface meaning and overall structure of the text. In this reading, pay attention to your subjective reader response.

3. Identify Binary Oppositions: Deconstruction often focuses on binary oppositions or pairs of contrasting terms within a text (e.g., good vs. evil, presence vs. absence; light vs. dark; feminine vs. masculine). Identify these binary oppositions in the text. These will be essential to your analysis.

4. Question Assumptions: Start questioning the assumptions that underlie these binary oppositions. Deconstruction seeks to reveal how these opposites are interdependent and how they undermine each other. Look for instances where the text blurs the lines between these opposites.

5. Look for Ambiguities: Deconstruction thrives on ambiguities and contradictions within a text. Pay close attention to passages or phrases that are open to multiple interpretations or that seem to contradict themselves.

6. Identify Hierarchies: Examine whether the text establishes hierarchies between the binary opposites. Which member of the binary opposition is preferred or privileged?

7. Trace Patterns and Reversals: Look for patterns or instances of reversals in the text. Derrida argued that texts often contain moments where the binary oppositions are subverted or reversed. Identify such instances and analyze their significance.

8. Analyze Language and Wordplay: Deconstruction places a heavy emphasis on the linguistic aspects of a text. Pay attention to wordplay, language choices, and the way language constructs meaning. Consider how certain words or phrases may carry hidden connotations.

9. Formulate Your Thesis Statement: Based on your analysis, formulate your interpretation of the text. Highlight the ambiguities, contradictions, and hidden meanings you’ve uncovered. Discuss how the text challenges traditional binary oppositions and hierarchies.

10. Write Your Analysis: Organize your findings into a coherent analysis. Start with an introduction that introduces the text and its context. Then, present your analysis in a structured manner, using evidence from the text to support your claims. Conclude by summarizing your key insights.

Keep in mind that deconstruction is a challenging and often abstract method of analysis. It requires careful attention to language and a willingness to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty in the text. It’s also important to engage with the work of other scholars who have applied deconstruction to similar texts to refine your own interpretation.

Applying Deconstruction Techniques to Literature

To learn more about how to apply deconstruction techniques to a text, we will read “The Glass Mountain” by Donald Barthelme. Donald Barthelme is widely considered to be the father of postmodern fiction. As we have learned thoughout this course, literature and criticism exist in conversation with each other. Just as Archibald MacLeish’s poem “Ars Poetica” demonstrates the theory behind New Criticism analysis, Barthelme’s short story demonstrates awareness of the theoretical underpinnings of deconstruction. Ask yourself some questions as you read:

What is the genre of this short story? (Note: It will be helpful if you are not already familiar with these works to look up “The Glass Mountain” from the Yellow Fairy Tale Book by Andrew Lang)
Why are the lines numbered?
How are direct quotations used? Are they real or spurious? (you may have to do some Internet research to answer this question)
What is the glass mountain?
What does the narrator hope to achieve by climbing the glass mountain?
Who are his “acquaintances”?
What is the symbol?
What is the point of this story?

“The Glass Mountain” by Donald Barthelme

2. The glass mountain stands at the corner of Thirteenth Street and Eighth Avenue.

3. I had attained the lower slope.

4. People were looking up at me.

5. I was new in the neighborhood.

6. Nevertheless I had acquaintances.

7. I had strapped climbing irons to my feet and each hand grasped sturdy plumber’s friend.

8. I was 200 feet up.

9. The wind was bitter.

10. My acquaintances had gathered at the bottom of the mountain to offer encouragement.

11. “Shithead.”

12. “Asshole.”

13. Everyone in the city knows about the glass mountain.

14. People who live here tell stories about it.

15. It is pointed out to visitors.

16. Touching the side of the mountain, one feels coolness.

17. Peering into the mountain, one sees sparkling blue-white depths.

18. The mountain towers over that part of Eighth Avenue like some splendid, immense office building.

19. The top of the mountain vanishes into the clouds, or on cloudless days, into the sun.

20. I unstuck the righthand plumber’s friend leaving the lefthand one in place.

21. Then I stretched out and reattached the righthand one a little higher up, after which I inched my legs into new positions.

22. The gain was minimal, not an arm’s length.

23. My acquaintances continued to comment.

24. “Dumb motherfucker.”

25. I was new in the neighborhood.

26. In the streets were many people with disturbed eyes.

27. Look for yourself.

28. In the streets were hundreds of young people shooting up in doorways, behind parked cars.

29. Older people walked dogs.

30. The sidewalks were full of dogshit in brilliant colors: ocher, umber, Mars yellow, sienna, viridian, ivory black, rose madder.

31. And someone had been apprehended cutting down trees, a row of elms broken-backed among the VWs and Valiants.

32. Done with a power saw, beyond a doubt.

33. I was new in the neighborhood yet I had accumulated acquaintances.

34. My acquaintances passed a brown bottle from hand to hand.

35. “Better than a kick in the crotch.”

36. “Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.”

37. “Better than a slap in the belly with a wet fish.”

38. “Better than a thump on the back with a stone.”

39. “Won’t he make a splash when he falls, now?”

40. “I hope to be here to see it. Dip my handkerchief in the blood.”

41. “Fart-faced fool.”

42. I unstuck the lefthand plumber’s friend leaving the righthand one in place.

43. And reached out.

44. To climb the glass mountain, one first requires a good reason.

45. No one has ever climbed the mountain on behalf of science, or in search of celebrity, or because the mountain was a challenge.

46. Those are not good reasons.

47. But good reasons exist.

48. At the top of the mountain there is a castle of pure gold, and in a room in the castle tower sits…

49. My acquaintances were shouting at me.

50. “Ten bucks you bust your ass in the next four minutes!”

51. …a beautiful enchanted symbol.

52. I unstuck the righthand plumber’s friend leaving the lefthand one in place.

53. And reached out.

54. It was cold there at 206 feet and when I looked down I was not encouraged.

55. A heap of corpses both of horses and riders ringed the bottom of the mountain, many dying men groaning there.

56. “A weakening of the libidinous interest in reality has recently come to a close.” (Anton Ehrenzweig)1

57. A few questions thronged into my mind.

58. Does one climb a glass mountain, at considerable personal discomfort, simply to disenchant a symbol?

59. Do today’s stronger egos still need symbols?

60. I decided that the answer to these questions was “yes.”

61. Otherwise what was I doing there, 206 feet above the power-sawed elms, whose white meat I could see from my height?

62. The best way to fail to climb the mountain is to be a knight in full armor–one whose horse’s hoofs strike fiery sparks from the sides of the mountain.

63. The following-named knights had failed to climb the mountain and were groaning in the heap: Sir Giles Guilford, Sir Henry Lovell, Sir Albert Denny, Sir Nicholas Vaux, Sir Patrick Grifford, Sir Gisbourne Gower, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir Peter Coleville, Sir John Blunt, Sir Richard Vernon, Sir Walter Willoughby, Sir Stephen Spear, Sir Roger Faulconbridge, Sir Clarence Vaughan, Sir Hubert Ratcliffe, Sir James Tyrrel, Sir Walter Herbert, Sir Robert Brakenbury, Sir Lionel Beaufort, and many others.2

64. My acquaintances moved among the fallen knights.

65. My acquaintances moved among the fallen knights, collecting rings, wallets, pocket watches, ladies’ favors.

66. “Calm reigns in the country, thanks to the confident wisdom of everyone.” (M. Pompidou)3

67. The golden castle is guarded by a lean-headed eagle with blazing rubies for eyes.

68. I unstuck the lefthand plumber’s friend, wondering if–

69. My acquaintances were prising out the gold teeth of not-yet dead knights.

70. In the streets were people concealing their calm behind a faÃ§ade of vague dread.

71. “The conventional symbol (such as the nightingale, often associated with melancholy), even though it is recognized only through agreement, is not a sign (like the traffic light) because, again, it presumably arouses deep feelings and is regarded as possessing properties beyond what the eye alone sees.” (A Dictionary of Literary Terms)

72. A number of nightingales with traffic lights tied to their legs flew past me.

73. A knight in pale pink armor appeared above me.

74. He sank, his armor making tiny shrieking sounds against the glass.

75. He gave me a sideways glance as he passed me.

76. He uttered the word “Muerte”4 as he passed me.

77. I unstuck the righthand plumber’s friend.

78. My acquaintances were debating the question, which of them would get my apartment?

79. I reviewed the conventional means of attaining the castle.

80. The conventional means of attaining the castle are as follows: “The eagle dug its sharp claws into the tender flesh of the youth, but he bore the pain without a sound, and seized the bird’s two feet with his hands. The creature in terror lifted him high up into the air and began to circle the castle. The youth held on bravely. He saw the glittering palace, which by the pale rays of the moon looked like a dim lamp; and he saw the windows and balconies of the castle tower. Drawing a small knife from his belt, he cut off both the eagle’s feet. The bird rose up in the air with a yelp, and the youth dropped lightly onto a broad balcony. At the same moment a door opened, and he saw a courtyard filled with flowers and trees, and there, the beautiful enchanted princess.” (The Yellow Fairy Book)5

81. I was afraid.

82. I had forgotten the Bandaids.

83. When the eagle dug its sharp claws into my tender flesh–

84. Should I go back for the Bandaids?

85. But if I went back for the Bandaids I would have to endure the contempt of my acquaintances.

86. I resolved to proceed without the Bandaids.

87. “In some centuries, his [man’s] imagination has made life an intense practice of all the lovelier energies.” (John Masefield)6

88. The eagle dug its sharp claws into my tender flesh.

89. But I bore the pain without a sound, and seized the bird’s two feet with my hands.

90. The plumber’s friends remained in place, standing at right angles to the side of the mountain.

91. The creature in terror lifted me high in the air and began to circle the castle.

92. I held on bravely.

93. I saw the glittering palace, which by the pale rays of the moon looked like a dim lamp; and I saw the windows and balconies of the castle tower.

94. Drawing a small knife from my belt, I cut off both the eagle’s feet.

95. The bird rose up in the air with a yelp, and I dropped lightly onto a broad balcony.

96. At the same moment a door opened, and I saw a courtyard filled with flowers and trees, and there, the beautiful enchanted symbol.

97. I approached the symbol, with its layers of meaning, but when I touched it, it changed into only a beautiful princess.

98. I threw the beautiful princess headfirst down the mountain to my acquaintances.

99. Who could be relied upon to deal with her.

100. Nor are eagles plausible, not at all, not for a moment.

1 A (probably) spurious quotation by a (probably) fictitious person. 2 Names chosen or invented at random to represent English knighthood. 3 Former President of France. The quotation is probably spurious. 4 “Death.” 5 One of a series of fairy tale collections edited by Andrew Lang. 6 Traditional English poet (1878-1967); he became Poet Laureate of England in 1930.

“The Glass Mountain” is from City Life . Pocket Books, 1978.

After completing a close reading of the text, you’ll want to come up with a thesis statement that you can support with the evidence you’ve found.

Example of Deconstruction thesis statement: In “The Glass Mountain,” the impossiblity of achieving shared meaning through text is demonstrated through the text’s subversion of the fairy tale genre and a mockery of traditional symbolism.

While ChatGPT clearly still has some shortcomings as a writer, one of its strengths is pattern analysis. I asked ChatGPT to read the short story above and suggest some ideas for a deconstructive analysis of the text. Here are some of the ideas it came up with that would be worth exploring:

Binary Oppositions: The story establishes several binary oppositions, such as climbing vs. failing to climb the glass mountain, newness vs. familiarity in the neighborhood, and the conventional vs. unconventional means of attaining the castle. Deconstruction would involve questioning the stability and interdependence of these oppositions.
Language and Wordplay: Barthelme’s use of language and wordplay is significant. The repetition of phrases like “I unstuck the [plumber’s] friend,” and the playful use of insults by acquaintances, highlight the importance of language in constructing meaning. Deconstruction would involve exploring how these linguistic elements challenge or subvert conventional interpretations.
Symbols and Meaning: The story introduces symbols like the glass mountain, the golden castle, and the beautiful enchanted symbol/princess. Deconstruction would inquire into the shifting and multiple meanings these symbols carry and how they resist fixed interpretation.
Contradictions and Ambiguities: Throughout the story, there are contradictions and ambiguities, such as the purpose of climbing the glass mountain, the nature of the castle’s inhabitant, and the fate of the beautiful princess. Deconstruction would focus on how these contradictions disrupt traditional narratives and hierarchies.
Intertextuality: The story references external texts and quotes, such as the ones from Anton Ehrenzweig, M. Pompidou, and “The Yellow Fairy Book.” Deconstruction would investigate how these references add layers of meaning and ambiguity to the narrative. (My note: most of these are fake references, just like ChatGPT provides fake references)
Narrative Perspective: The narrative perspective shifts from first-person to third-person at various points, raising questions about the reliability and authority of the narrator. Deconstruction would examine how these shifts impact the reader’s understanding of the text.
Metafictional Elements: The story contains metafictional elements where the narrator reflects on the act of storytelling and interpretation. Deconstruction would explore how these metafictional moments disrupt the boundaries between fiction and reality.

In a deconstructive analysis of “The Glass Mountain,” you would aim to reveal how these elements interact, contradict, and undermine each other, ultimately challenging the stability of meaning within the text. Deconstruction invites readers to question the assumptions and hierarchies embedded in the text and to recognize the inherent ambiguity and complexity of language and narrative.

Source: https://chat.openai.com/share/ea6ac091-27e9-439a-aaa5-600def26738f

Deconstruction’s Limitations

What is the point of a critical method that seeks to expose the gaps in meaning? As with any critical method, deconstruction has its limits and potential drawbacks. These include the following:

Complexity and Obscurity: Deconstruction is known for its complexity and abstract nature. This can make it difficult for both scholars and general readers to grasp and apply effectively. Deconstructive analyses can be dense and challenging to understand, which can limit its accessibility and practicality. This can lead to misunderstandings and even misrepresentation of both its goals and its methods.
Skepticism and Relativism: Deconstruction’s emphasis on the instability of meaning and the critique of binary oppositions can lead to a form of skepticism and relativism. While this can be a valuable tool for questioning established power structures and hierarchies, it may also create a sense of nihilism. If there’s no possibility of shared meaning, then what is the point?
Lack of Constructive Solutions: Deconstruction is often seen as a critical method that deconstructs existing texts and ideas but doesn’t necessarily offer constructive solutions or alternative interpretations. Critics argue that it can be overly focused on critique without providing a clear path forward for understanding or interpreting texts.
Challenges to Traditional Authority: While I see this as more of a strength than a limitation per se, it’s worth noting that deconstruction’s challenge to traditional forms of authority in literature and philosophy can be unsettling for those who prefer more stable and conventional interpretations.
Overemphasis on Textuality: Deconstruction’s focus on the text and language can sometimes lead to an overemphasis on textual analysis at the expense of considering broader contextual factors, such as historical, cultural, or authorial intentions. This narrow focus may limit the scope of interpretation. Subsequent critical methodologies often use deconstructive approaches in conjunction with a consideration of context.
Ethical Concerns: Some critics argue that deconstruction’s relativistic approach can be ethically problematic, as it may undermine moral and ethical judgments or lead to a lack of responsibility for the implications of certain texts. For me, personally, I worry that we are now living in the post-truth society that deconstruction anticipated more than 50 years ago, where “alternative facts” carry as much weight as regular boring facts.

Despite these limitations, deconstruction remains a valuable and influential critical method, particularly for its ability to challenge dominant interpretations and reveal hidden complexities within texts. However, its application should be balanced with other critical approaches and consideration of broader contextual factors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of literature and culture.

Structuralism and Deconstruction Scholars

These are some influential practitioners of structuralism and deconstruction

Ferdinand de Saussure (Structuralism)
Claude Levi-Strauss (Structuralism)
Jacques Derrida (Deconstruction)
Umberto Eco (Semiotics)
Roland Barthes (Deconstruction)
Jonathan Culler (Deconstruction)
Paul de Man (Deconstruction)
Richard Rorty (Deconstruction)

Share This Book

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction
Deconstruction in philosophy

Deconstruction in literary studies

Deconstruction in the social sciences and the arts, influence and criticism.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

CORE - Witnessing Deconstruction in Education
University of Idaho - Deconstruction
Academia - Deconstruction
Chritianity Today - The Most Dangerous Form of Deconstruction
College of Western Idaho Pressbooks - Critical Worlds - What is Deconstruction?
Rajdhani College - Derrida's Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance
Internet Encycopedia of Philosophy - Deconstruction
Yale University - Deconstruction
deconstruction - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Table Of Contents

Deconstruction’s reception was coloured by its intellectual predecessors, most notably structuralism and New Criticism . Beginning in France in the 1950s, the structuralist movement in anthropology analyzed various cultural phenomena as general systems of “signs” and attempted to develop “metalanguages” of terms and concepts in which the different sign systems could be described. Structuralist methods were soon applied to other areas of the social sciences and humanities , including literary studies. Deconstruction offered a powerful critique of the possibility of creating detached, scientific metalanguages and was thus categorized (along with kindred efforts) as “post-structuralist.” Anglo-American New Criticism sought to understand verbal works of art (especially poetry) as complex constructions made up of different and contrasting levels of literal and nonliteral meanings, and it emphasized the role of paradox and irony in these artifacts . Deconstructive readings, in contrast, treated works of art not as the harmonious fusion of literal and figurative meanings but as instances of the intractable conflicts between meanings of different types. They generally examined the individual work not as a self-contained artifact but as a product of relations with other texts or discourses, literary and nonliterary. Finally, these readings placed special emphasis on the ways in which the works themselves offered implicit critiques of the categories that critics used to analyze them. In the United States in the 1970s and ’80s, deconstruction played a major role in the animation and transformation of literary studies by literary theory (often referred to simply as “theory”), which was concerned with questions about the nature of language , the production of meaning , and the relationship between literature and the numerous discourses that structure human experience and its histories.

Deconstruction’s influence widened to include a variety of other disciplines . In psychoanalysis , deconstructive readings of texts by Sigmund Freud and others drew attention to the role of language in the formation of the psyche; showed how psychoanalytic case studies are shaped by the kinds of psychic mechanisms that they purport to analyze (thus, Freud’s writings are themselves organized by processes of repression, condensation, and displacement); and questioned the logocentric presuppositions of psychoanalytic theory. Some strands of feminist thinking engaged in a deconstruction of the opposition between “man” and “woman” and critiqued essentialist notions of gender and sexual identity. The work of Judith Butler , for example, challenged the claim that feminist politics requires a distinct identity for women. Arguing that identity is the product or result of action rather than the source of it, they embraced a performative concept of identity modeled on the way in which linguistic acts (such as promising) work to bring into being the entities (the promise) to which they refer. This perspective was influential in gay and lesbian studies, or “ queer theory ,” as the academic avant-garde linked to movements of gay liberation styled itself.

In the United States, the Critical Legal Studies movement applied deconstruction to legal writing in an effort to reveal conflicts between principles and counterprinciples in legal theory. The movement explored fundamental oppositions such as public and private, essence and accident, and substance and form. In anthropology, deconstruction contributed to an increased awareness of the role that anthropological field-workers play in shaping, rather than merely describing, the situations they report on and to a greater concern about the discipline’s historical connections to colonialism.

Finally, the influence of deconstruction spread beyond the humanities and social sciences to the arts and architecture . Combining deconstruction’s interest in tension and oppositions with the design vocabulary of Russian constructivism, deconstructivist architects such as Frank Gehry challenged the functionalist aesthetic of modern architecture through designs using radical geometries, irregular forms, and complex, dynamic constructions.

In all the fields it influenced, deconstruction called attention to rhetorical and performative aspects of language use, and it encouraged scholars to consider not only what a text says but also the relationship—and potential conflict—between what a text says and what it “does.” In various disciplines, deconstruction also prompted an exploration of fundamental oppositions and critical terms and a reexamination of ultimate goals. Most generally, deconstruction joined with other strands of poststructural and postmodern thinking to inspire a suspicion of established intellectual categories and a skepticism about the possibility of objectivity. Consequently, its diffusion was met with a sizeable body of opposition. Some philosophers, especially those in the Anglo-American tradition, dismissed it as obscurantist wordplay whose major claims, when intelligible, were either trivial or false. Others accused it of being ahistorical and apolitical. Still others regarded it as a nihilistic endorsement of radical epistemic relativism. Despite such attacks, deconstruction has had an enormous impact on a variety of intellectual enterprises.

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Historical Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Browse content in Art
History of Art
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical Literature
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
History by Period
History of Gender and Sexuality
Intellectual History
Legal and Constitutional History
Maritime History
Military History
Political History
Regional and National History
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Language Teaching and Learning
Browse content in Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Variation
Language Families
Language Acquisition
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Christianity
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Religion and Politics
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Browse content in Law
Company and Commercial Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Constitutional and Administrative Law
Criminal Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Legal System and Practice
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
History of Medicine
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Browse content in Economics
Economic History
Browse content in Education
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Browse content in Politics
Asian Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
European Union
Human Rights and Politics
International Relations
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Theory
Public Policy
Russian Politics
Security Studies
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Sociology of Religion
Reviews and Awards
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Reading and Responsibility: Deconstruction's Traces

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

2 Deconstruction Today: Literature, Postcolonialism and the Secret

Published: May 2010
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter begins by following Jacques Derrida, writing in ‘Some Statements and Truisms’, in distinguishing between deconstruction and deconstructionism . Deconstruction without the -ism is something else – indeed, ‘it’ is not a ‘thing’. The spread of Derrida's work has been remarkable: no figures have been found about the number of languages into which it has been translated, but it is no doubt the equal of any twentieth-century philosopher or cultural critic. Running counter to the Derridean influence on postcolonial studies is a strong current of resistance by those who feel that the pursuit of ‘theory’ has been to the detriment of material analysis and actual achievements on the ground. The secret of literature is closely connected, for Derrida, to his understanding of democracy.

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

Month:	Total Views:
October 2022	5
March 2023	4
April 2023	2
January 2024	1
August 2024	1

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Deconstruction

Editor's Choice

What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature?

Quick answer:

The deconstruction approach in literature, attributed to Jacques Derrida, invites readers to scrutinize the fundamental concepts of Western philosophy and the relationship between words and meaning, thereby challenging the conventional interpretations of a work. However, its main drawback is its potential to obscure definitive answers to philosophical questions and weaken scholarly communication. Moreover, while the freedom it offers in interpretation can be empowering, it can also lead to arbitrary and potentially misleading interpretations, particularly when these are propagated by the most dominant voices.

Expert Answers

Who are the experts? Our certified Educators are real professors, teachers, and scholars who use their academic expertise to tackle your toughest questions. Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.

Educator since 2019

1,002 answers

I currently pursue journalistic and fiction writing full time while working as a freelancer and as an educator for a nonprofit organization that works to educate young people and combat the effects of poverty on literacy.

Deconstruction is a form of literary analysis that has widely been attributed to the work of Jacques Derrida. At its core, it is mean to question the fundamental concepts of Western philosophy.

One of the advantages to deconstruction is that it encourages such a close analysis that the reader begins to question not only the commonly understood meaning of a work but also why a reader would even draw such inferences in the first place. Deconstruction looks closely at the relationship between words and meaning and calls to attention the subjectivity of language.

A disadvantage of deconstruction would be its tendency to obfuscate any "real" answer to a philosophical question. It might weaken the ability of scholars to communicate with each other in an effective way.

Cite this page as follows:

Sanders, Hollis. "What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature?" edited by eNotes Editorial, 13 Feb. 2019, https://www.enotes.com/topics/deconstruction/questions/what-advantages-disadvantages-deconstruction-82963.

Professional Writer

M.A. from University of Virginia

Educator since 2017

785 answers

Freelance writer and editor of over 15 years with a background in teaching.

Deconstruction as a philosophy and a literary theory offers readers a way to engage with writing that is two-sided; deconstructivists deny that language has fixed and permanent meaning, which can either mean that language is freed up to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people or, that language is actually tied to the voice of the privileged and authoritative, whose interpretations are the loudest and the most visible, thanks to the position of the interpreter.

The advantage of deconstruction is the freedom it provides a reader. Literature is "text," which means that the words on the page are merely words until a reader or a critic places meaning on the words, and in theory, anyone can be empowered by engaging with language and giving it meaning of his or her own. The disadvantage of deconstruction can also be found in this same exact freedom. Without any fixed meaning, language can cease to mean much of anything, as interpreters of text could argue that anything on a page can means anything else at all. This approach to engaging with literature does mean that literature is vulnerable to being ascribed meaning that becomes popular and widely accepted not because it is true and rational, but because the voice of the interpreter is simply the loudest of all other voices.

Ramsson, Lynn. "What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature?" edited by eNotes Editorial, 12 Feb. 2018, https://www.enotes.com/topics/deconstruction/questions/what-advantages-disadvantages-deconstruction-82963.

Educator since 2009

Deconstruction is one of many methods for reading and interpreting literature. It is a theory developed by the philosopher Jacques Derrida.

The advantage of deconstruction is that the reader is encouraged to question traditional assumptions and prejudices. For example, there are many assumptions regarding binary oppositions. Many of our thoughts and opinions are fixed in these binary oppositions, such as man/woman, white/black, west/east, good/evil, etc. In these binary oppositions, the first in the pair, man, white, etc., is considered to be the norm and therefore superior, while the second, woman, black, etc., is considered deviant and inferior. We tend to think that these oppositions are definite and fixed, whereas in reality they are often blurred and are in fact artificial. The power of ideology is that it puts forward ideas as natural and factual, but deconstruction helps us to see that they are not natural at all.

A disadvantage of deconstruction might be the argument that it makes truth or knowledge impossible because everything can be deconstructed. So, truth and knowledge are only relative and often subjective. For example, a literary text will have a different meaning to each individual reader; it will have no absolute or fixed meaning. However, it is debatable whether this is a disadvantage or not.

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Already a member? Log in here.

O'Dwyer, Kathleen. "What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature?" edited by eNotes Editorial, 10 May 2009, https://www.enotes.com/topics/deconstruction/questions/what-advantages-disadvantages-deconstruction-82963.

DECONSTRUCTION THEORY AND ITS BACKGROUND

This article defines and presents the meaning and significance of "deconstruction" in modern critical theory. It reveals the overview of "deconstruction" as a theory of reading texts, and it explains the philosophical foundations of deconstructive thinking, through the Derridean critiques of Plato, Martin Heidegger and Ferdinand de Saussure. The article proposes also to expose how "deconstruction" is used in various fields of study today, asserts the philosophical status of the deconstructive theory and assesses its contribution to knowledge in general.

Related Papers

Timibofa ayebanoah

This study investigates Deconstruction as a theory. It attempts to examine its significance in literary analysis and criticism. The paper argues and concludes that most classical and ancient works of literature like, Hamlet, Othello, The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare and Things Fall Apart, No longer At Ease, A man of the People by Chinua Achebe to mention but a few, would have gone into extinction, but for the development of Deconstruction life has returned to them, as it gives scholar an opportunity to explore new interpretations. 2

Pravin K. Patel

The objective of this paper centers on two fundamental issues, that is, to formulate some strategies of the process of “deconstruction,” and to explore what kind of function, beyond the realm of philosophy and linguistic concerns, it asserts in terms of reading the text. In doing so, this paper attempts to offer an alternative and “supplement” perspective on the thesis of Jonathan Culler, Christopher Norris and Peggy Kumuf, to name only a few, who consider deconstruction a “theory,” a “method” or a “doctrine” concerned only with metaquestioning of language, which in turn destabilizes the foundation and established ideology. In theoretical speculations, I shall limit my concerns to literary texts only.

Timothy H. Wilson

An introduction to Derrida's philosophy and deconstructive method -- with a focus as well on Derrida's precursors: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Saussure and Freud.

Journal for Communication and Culture

Adrian Costache

Leonard Lawlor

Alexa Hepburn

Anil Singhal

Dr Bilal A H M A D Dar

stefano marino

worldlitonline.net

Chung Chin-Yi

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Literary Studies

Giuseppe Stellardi

Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

Lasse Thomassen

James Faulconer

sumera jawad

Frank Miller

Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities

Sanjaya Sahu

Cambridge History of French Thought

Paul Rekret

mia agustina

Language Forum

Dr. Vasanthan R

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development

Dr. Santosh Kumar Nayak

Maria Spiridopoulou

Philosophy and Literature

Alan Daboin

Juliette Furio

Vina Hartsa

Babbi'ta Kalpde

Zsuzsa Baross

Ajda Baştan

Les Temps Modernes 669/70

Timothy Mooney

Dr. Husnat Ahmed Tabssam

DR H U S N A T AHMED , Mahwish Aslam

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

COMMENTS

Deconstruction
Deconstruction is a poststructuralist theory, based largely but not exclusively on the writings of Derrida. It is in the first instance a philosophical theory and a theory directed towards the (re)reading of philosophical writings. Its impact on literature, mediated in North America largely through the influences of theorists at Yale University ...
Deconstruction
The Invention of Deconstruction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. DOI: 10.1057/9781137307033. Currie's is in part a highly self-conscious retrospective intellectual history of the emergence of literary deconstruction in the United States, focusing equally on Derrida and de Man. It includes discussions of key texts as well as key ...
What Is Deconstruction?
What Is Deconstruction? Deconstruction is a critical approach to literary analysis and philosophy that was developed in the late 1960s, most notably by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. It challenges the traditional notions of language, meaning, and truth by exposing the contradictions and inconsistencies within texts and ideas.
Deconstruction
deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that questions the fundamental conceptual distinctions, or "oppositions," in Western philosophy through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and literary texts. In the 1970s the term was applied to work by Derrida ...
Deconstruction Criticism
Criticism: Deconstruction And Literature The Challenge of Deconstruction Making and Breaking Meaning: Deconstruction, Four-Level Allegory, and The Metamorphosis
On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism on ...
Deconstruction has been variously presented as a philosophical position, a political or intellectual strategy, and a mode of reading. Students of literature and literary theory are doubtless most interested in its power as a method of reading and interpretation, but if our goal is to describe and evaluate the practice of deconstruction in ...
Deconstruction
Abstract. Although the French philosopher Jacques Derrida did not invent the term 'deconstruction'—he found it in a dictionary—it was an obsolete and archaic word when he first started to use it in the 1960s. Yet these days you are just as likely to come across it in a newspaper or in the title of a film such as Woody Allen's ...
Oxford Literary Review
Oxford Literary Review Search the journal. OLR devotes itself to outstanding writing in deconstruction, literary theory, psychoanalytic theory, political theory and related forms of exploratory thought. Founded in 1977 it remains responsive to new concerns and committed to patient, inventive reading as the wellspring of critical research. ...
Deconstruction
This chapter approaches the topic of deconstruction through a selective account of Jacques Derrida's work along with that of Paul de Man and other thinkers such as Geoffrey Hartman. It offers a critical and cultural perspective by reviewing the complex reception-history of Derrida's thought and the often sharply contrasted ways in which his ...
The Poetic Thing (On Poetry and Deconstruction)
Deconstruction has sometimes been championed as if it was a kind of poetic (as opposed to say analytic) writing. The identification has encouraged some to relegate deconstruction to the shadows or sidelines, the sideshows, of serious philosophy. Both tendencies are foolish. There nonetheless remains the question of the relation between two enigmatic discourses: poetry and deconstruction; some ...
Deconstruction
Deconstruction - Poststructuralism, Language, Texts: Deconstruction's reception was coloured by its intellectual predecessors, most notably structuralism and New Criticism. Beginning in France in the 1950s, the structuralist movement in anthropology analyzed various cultural phenomena as general systems of "signs" and attempted to develop "metalanguages" of terms and concepts in ...
On Deconstruction and Childhood
On Deconstruction and Childhood. Recommend to Library. Article Tools. Hélène Cixous. and Jacques Derrida. Additional Info. Oxford Literary Review, Volume 41 Issue 2, Page 149-159, ISSN 0305-1498 Available Online Nov 2019. First Page. Full Text.
PDF Deconstruction
Deconstruction made its first inroads in the United States through departments of literary criticism, which sought new strategies for interpreting literary texts. As a result, deconstruction became associated and sometimes confused with other trends, including reader response theory, which argues that a text's
Deconstruction Today: Literature, Postcolonialism and the Secret
Having begun his publishing career with a widely used poststructuralist anthology, Untying the Text (1981), and as co-editor of the journal largely responsible for introducing Derrida's work to Britain, the Oxford Literary Review, Young has gone on to become one of the leading scholars of postcolonialism: besides White Mythologies (1990 ...
What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature
The advantage of deconstruction is the freedom it provides a reader. Literature is "text," which means that the words on the page are merely words until a reader or a critic places meaning on the ...
PDF DECONSTRUCTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE. By Christopher Norris. London and
IN S. BROWNUn. versity of GeorgiaDECONSTRUCTION: TH. ORY AND PRACTICE. By ChristopherNew York: Methuen, 1982. xiii, 157 p.Christopher Norris' Deconstruction: Theory and Prac. ice is an excellent guide to an important movement in literary theory. Norris deals well with the philosophic.
DECONSTRUCTION THEORY AND ITS BACKGROUND
This study investigates Deconstruction as a theory. It attempts to examine its significance in literary analysis and criticism. The paper argues and concludes that most classical and ancient works of literature like, Hamlet, Othello, The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare and Things Fall Apart, No longer At Ease, A man of the People by Chinua Achebe to mention but a few, would have gone ...
The Exercise of Deconstruction
OLR devotes itself to outstanding writing in deconstruction, literary theory, psychoanalytic theory, political theory and related forms of exploratory thought.Founded in 1977 it remains responsive to new concerns and committed to patient, inventive reading as the wellspring of critical research. It has published work by many trailblazing thinkers and seeks to take forward the movement of ...
(PDF) A Review on Deconstruction and Criticism
Abstract. This essay is a review on Deconstruction and Criticism. In this book, Bloom explores how strong poets, through misreading, conquer the influence of anxiety from the precursors so as to ...
Deconstructionism in Literature
Deconstruction literary theory, "deconstruction" meaning to break down texts in this context, considers the "whole" and the "holes" of the text. In other words, what is said and what is left unsaid.
Full article: Deconstructing complexities in the adoption of new forms
The review paper begins with a comprehensive literature review to understand the emerging new forms of journalism. It extracts the themes and sub-themes from the existing literature to analyze the research area and reflect the developments in the newsroom. The paper concludes with the future scope of research in this field that can be useful ...
Introduction: What Might Eco-Deconstruction Be?
OLR devotes itself to outstanding writing in deconstruction, literary theory, psychoanalytic theory, political theory and related forms of exploratory thought.Founded in 1977 it remains responsive to new concerns and committed to patient, inventive reading as the wellspring of critical research. It has published work by many trailblazing thinkers and seeks to take forward the movement of ...

Literary Theory and Criticism

Deconstruction

Share this:

Related Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Literary and Critical Theory

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Deconstruction

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Deconstruction by Joshua Kates LAST REVIEWED: 26 July 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0010

19 What Is Deconstruction?

Learning Outcomes

A Note about Structuralism (and Post-Structuralism)

An Excerpt from Deconstruction Scholarship

From “Différance” by Jacques Derrida (1982) (translated by Alan Bass)

Close Reading in Deconstruction

Applying Deconstruction Techniques to Literature

“The Glass Mountain” by Donald Barthelme

Deconstruction’s Limitations

Structuralism and Deconstruction Scholars

Further Reading

Share This Book

Deconstruction in literary studies

Sign in through your institution

2 Deconstruction Today: Literature, Postcolonialism and the Secret

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

What are the pros and cons of the deconstruction approach in literature?

Expert Answers

Cite this page as follows:

See eNotes Ad-Free

Popular Questions

DECONSTRUCTION THEORY AND ITS BACKGROUND

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

COMMENTS