The following entry discusses deconstruction theory as a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary texts.
Deconstruction is a literary criticism movement originated by French critic Jacques Derrida in the 1960s, developed in three works—De la grammatologie (1967; Of Grammatology), L'Écriture et la différence (1967; Writing and Difference), and La Voix et le phénomène: introduction au problème du signe dans la phénomènologie de Husserl (1967; Speech and Phenomena and Other Writings on Husserl's Theory of Signs). Drawing on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, Søren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche, on the language theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, and on the psychoanalytic ideas of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan, Derrida presented his notion of deconstruction in 1966 at an international symposium at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. There he met Lacan and American critic Paul de Man for the first time, and they formed the core group that would go on to popularize deconstruction in the United States. Initially considered elitist, nihilistic, and subversive of humanistic ideals, deconstruction has been much debated in academe and has gained more widespread acceptance, although it still remains, to an extent, a radical way of analyzing texts.
Deconstruction theory embraces the precept that meaning is always uncertain and that it is not the task of the literary critic to illuminate meaning in a given text. Derrida began with Saussure's ideas of the signified and the signifier: an idea (signified) is represented by a sign (signifier), but the sign can never be the same as the idea. The French term “différer” used in deconstruction discourse refers both to the difference between signified and signifier, and to the way the signified defers meaning to the signifier. The signified contains a trace of the signifier, but also of its opposite. According to practitioners of deconstruction, the job of the literary critic is to look for “slippage” in the text—to note duplicity, or to expose how a text has violated the very linguistic and thematic rules it has set up internally. Calling attention to breaks in the internal logic of a literary text achieves its deconstruction. Deconstruction itself can be deconstructed, however, and the process goes on indefinitely.
Because it challenges logocentrism—that is, it questions order and certainty in language—deconstruction has been viewed by its opponents as an intellectually obscure, negativistic form of cultural critique. M. H. Abrams wrote a particularly devastating essay on deconstruction, and Steven E. Cole and Archibald A. Hill have criticized the methods of de Man and Geoffrey Hartman, respectively. Other scholars have found deconstruction a stimulating and innovative new approach to literary criticism. While such critics as Lance St. John Butler and Shawn St. Jean have written on major literary figures and works using deconstruction theory, other scholars, including Edward Said, David B. Allison, and Christina M. Howells have found an application for deconstruction in the fields of history and philosophy.
Jonathan Arac, Wlad Godzich, Wallace Martin, editors
The Yale Critics: Deconstruction in America (criticism) 1983
Murphy (novel) 1938
En attendant Godot [Waiting for Godot] (play) 1953
L'innommable [The Unnamable] (novel) 1953
Watt (novel) 1953
Fin de Partie [Endgame] (play) 1957
Harold Bloom, Paul de Man, Jacques Derrida, Geoffrey H. Hartman, J. Hillis Miller
Deconstruction and Criticism (criticism) 1979
On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (criticism) 1982
De la grammatologie [Of Grammatology] (criticism) 1967
L'Écriture et la différence [Writing and Difference] (criticism) 1967
La Voix et le phénomène: introduction au problème du signe dans la phénomènologie de Husserl [Speech and Phenomena and Other Writings on Husserl's Theory of Signs] (criticism) 1967
La dissémination [Dissemination] (criticism) 1972
Marges de la philosophie [Margins of Philosophy] (criticism) 1972
Positions [Positions] (criticism) 1972
Nietzsche aujourd'hui [Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles] (criticism) 1973
Glas [Glas] (criticism) 1974
Mémoires: Pour Paul de Man [Mémoirs: For Paul de Man] (memoirs) 1986
Du droit à la philosophie (lectures) 1990
Spectres de Marx: L'Etat de la dette, le travail du deuil et la nouvelle Internationale [Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of the Mourning, and the New International] (criticism) 1993
An American Tragedy (novel) 1925
Criticism in the Wilderness: The Study of Literature (criticism) 1980
Anselm Haverkamp, editor
Deconstruction is/in America: A New Sense of the Political (criticism) 1995
Sein und Zeit: Erste Haelfte [Being and Time] (nonfiction) 1927
Logische Untersuchungen [Logical Investigations] (nonfiction) 1900
The Wake of Deconstruction (criticism) 1994
“Die Verwandlung” [“Metamorphosis”] (short story) 1915
Ecrits [Ecrits: A Selection] (essays) 1966
D. H. Lawrence
Studies in Classic American Literature (essays) 1923
Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato, editors
The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man: The Structuralist Controversy (criticism) 1970
Paul de Man
Allegories of Reading: Figural Reading in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (essays) 1979
J. Hillis Miller
The Disappearance of God (essays) 1963
Poets of Reality (essays) 1965
Thomas Hardy: Distance and Desire (essays) 1970
Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik [The Birth of Tragedy] (essay) 1872
Also Sprach Zarathustra [Thus Spake Zarathustra] (prose) 1883-85
L'etre et le neant: Essai d'ontologie phenomenologique [Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology] (philosophy) 1943
Saint Genet, comedien et martyr [Saint Genet: Actor and Martyr] (biography) 1952
Ferdinand de Saussure
Cours de linguistique générale [Course in General Linguistics] (nonfiction) 1916
SOURCE: Abrams, M. H. “The Deconstructive Angel.” Critical Inquiry 3, no. 3 (spring 1977): 425-38.
[In the following essay, which many critics consider the strongest and most influential critique of deconstruction, Abrams points out the limitations of deconstruction in literary criticism.]
—If the Abysm
Could vomit forth its secrets:—but a voice
Is wanting …
—Shelley, Prometheus Unbound
We have been instructed these days to be wary of words like “origin,” “center,” and “end,” but I will venture to say that this...
(The entire section is 6356 words.)
SOURCE: Atkins, G. Douglas. “J. Hillis Miller, Deconstruction, and the Recovery of Transcendence.” Notre Dame English Journal 13, no. 1 (fall 1980): 51-63.
[In the following essay, Atkins explores the charge of lack of spiritual concern leveled against deconstructionist critics, pointing out that their writings reinterpret rather than negate questions of the spiritual.]
Following publication of Charles Dickens: The World of His Novels (1958), The Disappearance of God (1963), and Poets of Reality (1965), J. Hillis Miller became known as one of the most knowledgeable and articulate spokesmen for religion in modern literature. These works, and...
(The entire section is 5562 words.)
SOURCE: Atkins, G. Douglas. “The Sign as a Structure of Difference: Derridean Deconstruction and Some of Its Implications.” In Semiotic Themes, edited by Richard T. DeGeorge, pp. 133-47. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications, 1981.
[In the following essay, Atkins discusses the ideas of Derrida, a leading practitioner of deconstruction, defending him from accusations of nihilism and undermining the humanistic tradition in literature.]
A major force to be reckoned with in contemporary literary criticism is Jacques Derrida. Derrida's star has risen precipitously since his participation in 1966 in a Johns Hopkins international symposium, where he took...
(The entire section is 5971 words.)
SOURCE: Cole, Steven E. “The Dead-end of Deconstruction: Paul de Man and the Fate of Poetic Language.” Criticism 30, no. 1 (winter 1988): 91-112.
[In the following essay, Cole focuses on the critical theory of de Man, suggesting that his deconstruction of meaning in literature leads not to liberation from tradition, but to a logical dead end.]
Perhaps no contemporary theorist is more difficult to analyze than Paul de Man, although the difficulties are not precisely what his admirers have supposed. In the flood of commentary which has appeared since his death (and this is true even of Jacques Derrida's remarkable...
(The entire section is 9372 words.)
SOURCE: Hill, Archibald A. “Deconstruction and Analysis of Meaning in Literature.” In Language and Cultures: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Palomé, edited by Mohammad Ali Jazayery and Werner Winter, pp. 279-85. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.
[In the following essay, Hill discusses Hartman's deconstructionist interpretation of selected poems and posits that deconstructionist critics confuse textual with contextual meaning.]
As an academic who has spent a good many years in teaching both literature and linguistics, and in watching and even participating in literary and linguistic analysis, I can not help being repelled by some of the recent developments in...
(The entire section is 2513 words.)
SOURCE: de Vries, Hent. “Deconstruction and America.” In Traveling Theory: France and the United States, edited by Ieme van der Poel and Sophie Bertho, pp. 72-98. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999.
[In the following essay, de Vries presents an overview of issues raised by deconstruction theory as it was introduced and flourished in the United States.]
Much has changed since October 1966, when the famous conference on structuralism took place at Johns Hopkins University, introducing the work of a remarkable group of contemporary French thinkers in the United States. The conference, which featured lectures by Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, and...
(The entire section is 10512 words.)