Deconstruction is a literary philosophy that challenges the idea of a singular meaning in a text, suggesting that meanings are multiple and contradictory. It evaluates underlying value structures and traditional teachings of literary canon. Critics argue that it deprives texts of meaning, but deconstructionists see it as a source of multiple meanings. Some accuse the theory of being fascist due to a leading proponent’s alleged Nazi sympathies. The practice can be seen as elitist and inaccessible to many readers.
Deconstruction is a philosophy applied to literary criticism, as well as criticism of other arts, that began gaining popularity in the 1980s. The field arose partly in reaction to the literary theories of structuralism, which posited that, when words could be understood in the context of a society of readers, then the specific meaning of a text could be indicated. This philosophy avoided the concept of one possible meaning for a text and suggested instead that meanings are multiple and contradictory.
At the foundation of a text is the subtext, a set of values that must be evaluated to see if the text is indeed of a contrary nature and, therefore, somehow meaningless. The deconstruction also evaluates how texts from the traditional literary canon are taught to students, suggesting that traditional “readings” often ignore underlying value structures in direct opposition to what is being taught.
A simple example of this is the analysis of Mark Twain’s play Huckleberry Finn. For many years this novel was held as a major work on human rights and an examination of man’s inhumanity to man. Through Huck’s eyes, the reader could see the devastation of slavery and the degradation suffered by African Americans.
Critics who quite logically use deconstruction point to the latter part of the book, in which Huck and Tom realize that Jim is a free man and no longer a slave, but go to great lengths to pretend to be a slave. They lock him up and almost starve him. Huck is willing enough to degrade Jim like this, showing little moral qualms about doing so.
For those who practice this kind of criticism, this bizarre chapter suggests that so-called human rights work is something else entirely. The underlying values of the text are not consistent with the way it is presented to students. In a certain sense, the deconstructionist has disassembled the novel and its critical tradition, showing its inconsistencies.
Many literary critics detest this practice, saying that taking apart a text deprives it of meaning and ultimately rejects the value of everything it touches. Those using this method might argue, “How do you define value? What does it mean?” While this response may frustrate critics, it points to how deconstructionists see the text as a source of multiple meanings, determined in large measure by each reader’s subtexts and definitions. Reducing a work’s meaning can ultimately render it purposeless, some critics argue. At best, however, this philosophy can be useful for unmasking the enormous contradictions present in a text.
Critics have also accused the theory of being fascist in nature, largely due to a leading proponent, Paul de Man, who may have written for a magazine that had some Nazi sympathies. Paul de Man has refuted these allegations, but in the minds of many, deconstruction seems inexorably linked to fascism.
It is true that reading a deconstruction of a text can be similar to trying to decode a secret message. Deconstructionists like Jack Derrida deliberately choose confusing and long words to derive a multiplicity of meanings from their interpretation. Somehow, this makes the practice elitist and inaccessible to many readers. The deconstructionist, on the other hand, does not care who is confused, and believes that confusion must be the result.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
