“Break it down some break it on down…”
Ahhh, deconstruction. I’ve been banging my head against this wall for several months. I didn’t really get this until I sat down with RoyalOil and talked it all out. For me, deconstruction only really makes sense in the context of it being a reaction against the rigidity of structuralist theory. While structuralists hold that language functions to convey definitive meaning, deconstruction theorists declare such absolutism to be totalitarian. There can be no way of knowing what any given text means, as the influences on a text are broad-ranging and ultimately unknowable. If you can continue to question what a text means, or what subtle influences may have unconsciously shaped the word choice of the author, you can continue to question what the real meaning of a text can be. When you reach that point of paradox where you cannot determine actual meaning and the text becomes “undecidable,” you have achieved aporia. This seems to be the actual goal of deconstruction literary criticism; finding the aspect of text that makes it unknowable is a grand irritant to other literary critics, and therefore desirable. The deconstruction theorist is a gadfly…
This theory is ultimately very useful to the teacher. Appleman cites Moore (1998) who quotes McLaughlin who defines deconstruction theory as “equipment for post-modern living” (p. 104). Ultimately, deconstruction is a rebellion against accepting the opinions of others; this makes the theory highly attractive. Students may revel in the idea that they can reject meaning. As they search for ways to reject what you offer them, they may actually learn something new…
—Ludlow
Reference
Appleman, D. (2000). Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I still believe that in the process of teaching literary criticism, Deconstruction should come last. Literary theory, and the act of employing it, is in essence a search for meaning. Beginning a study with this theory would create a pessimistic view of all other theories if any student chooses to adopt Deconstruction as their philosophy of choice.
According to Deconstruction, Feminism is wrong, and so is Marxism, as well as New Historicism. Everything is wrong (except, possibly Reader Response). Deconstruction is Derrida’s proverbial middle finger to the search of any central meaning of text, so any theory that is looking for a central meaning is now bunk.
I agree that Deconstruction is a rebellious theory that some students may lock onto, but I believe that this theory should always belong to the minority of philosophers. That’s not to say it shouldn’t exist. We need people to ask these questions and make people angry, but if this theory were too popular, it would lead to many a lethargic English major.