deconstruction

Keep in mind that poststructuralism includes a huge group of theories and
people. I'll focus on a particular brand of poststructuralism (deconstruction)
and a small branch of that as well (Look, I'm speaking as a structuralist.)

Why We Read

Generally speaking, a poststructuralist reads to identify and "dis-assemble"
fundamental structures in absolutely anything as a way to identify and critique
ideological structures. In this sense poststructuralism is less an interpretive
strategy than it is a method of critique. On the other hand, "critique" implies a
kind of making sense or interpretation. As Jane Caplan says, "deconstruction
is a method of reading that not only exposes the limitations or inconsistencies
of any particular set of conceptual oppositions and priorities in a text, but also
shows how the text's attempt to maintain this system undermines the very
principles of its own operation. In other words, deconstruction is
simultaneously a critique of the categories proffered by a text, and an expos�
of the text's unacknowledged challenges to its own premises." Deconstruction
wants to reveal the ideology of the binaries that govern a text (Who benefits
from keeping these terms separate? Who benefits from the present polarity?)
and open up new paths, reveal opportunities and possibilities, and offer a new
way of perceiving the world. To be even more reductive, a deconstructive
reader reads to expose any system as an inherently contradictory system.
While the end result of deconstruction is unknowable (one cannot have an
agenda in mind), it ultimately provides more opportunities and possibilities
because the system that constrained or restricted possibilities is now
dismantled or destabilized. Historically, groups traditionally ignored,
suppressed, oppressed, and disadvantaged have effectively used
deconstruction to question traditional notions of race, class, gender,
nationality, etc.

What We Read

As with structuralists, poststructuralists are willing to read anything, for
everything is part of a sign system, from literary texts to velvet paintings, from
cars to a celebrity's face, from ancient cultures to Madonna. In fact, this ability
to move from one system to another is what makes poststructuralism so
useful. The theory not only reveals the "constructedness" of everything, but it
tends to focus on key binaries whose power and control is most extensive.
For example, poststructuralists are preoccupied with binaries that support
huge systems: male/female, reason/superstition, reason/religion, truth/myth,
speech/writing, science/religion, history/fiction, cause/effect, public/private,
rational/irrational, West/East, mind/body, etc. There is always a ripple effect
when one set of binaries is destabilized because the terms on each side of the
binary are usually linked or associated with each other (i.e. Men are from
Mars and Women are from Venus, blah, blah, blah). Poststructuralists also
like to seek out ignored passages, works, and people whose significance
ultimately undermines a larger project, for unity and order are only achievable
by ignoring something, and deconstruction is interested in what is ignored (i.e.
Derrida finds that a rather obscure work by Rousseau is the loose thread that
problematizes all of Rousseau's work). In other words, deconstructionists
seek out the part ignored by the system to show the limitations of the system
itself.

How We Read

The most basic questions are... "How does the text undermine its own
philosophy or ideological hierarchy? What are all the possible meanings the
text might convey? (You need to reveal the inevitable indetermincy of the
text). Who benefits and who loses when one claims that "X" is
commonsensical, natural, or normal?" (You need to show that the claim for
the "commonsensical," "natural," or "normal" always privileges a particular
ideological affiliation.)

Writing Suggestions:

Part One: Present Apparent Unity

Offer a New Critical or Structuralist reading of your text. Explain the binary
oppositions that structure the text or the apparent unity of the text or
philosophy. Explain what the text seems to suggest, critique, challenge,
reinforce, celebrate, or disparage. Use those verbs! You want to convey a
temporary or apparent sense of order, unity, and closure.

Part Two: Read Against the Grain/Multiply Meanings

Option One: Poststructuralist Critique: Undoing the Knot/Recognizing
Disunity

Once you have read with the grain in part one, you can now read against the
grain by performing the basic deconstructive strategy which requires you to
critique the stability of those binary pairs, hierarchies, and ideological projects
you mapped in part one. As I asked above, "How does the text undermine its
own philosophy or ideological hierarchy? What are all the possible meanings
the text might convey? In other words, you need to problematize the either/or
structure of the oppositions. You can reverse the polarity, demonstrating that
the text itself is ironic in that it really privileges what it attempts to disparage,
but you need to go on to show that the two terms "contaminate" each other,
that the terms have no permanent boundaries, that they are ultimately
undecidable and indeterminate. You are not merely trying to show paradox or
irony as a New Critic would. A key difference between New Criticism and
deconstruction is that New Critics try to harmonize apparent contradictions,
paradoxes, and ambiguites while deconstructionists try to make readers
aware of the inability to provide closure and unity or resolve ambiguity. Again,
unity is only possible if someone ignores or represses something, and what is
ignored or repressed always reveals ideological foundations or assumptions.

As Peter Barry points out, "the deconstructive reading, then, aims to produce
disunity, to show that what had looked like unity and coherency actually
contains contradictions and conflicts which the text cannot stabilize and
contain" (77). Or as Barbara Johnson claims, "deconstruction is the careful
teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text itself." My favorite
example of this strategy is Robert Scholes' first chapter, "The English
Apparatus," in Textual Power. Scholes performs exactly what it means to
identify and then problematize the binaries literature/non-literature,
production/consumption, and real world/academy. The "undoing" of those
binaries begins on page 8 in Textual Power.

Option Two:

Poststructuralist Interpretation: Make Sense of Deconstructive Texts

Many texts blur the boundary of critical texts in that some "literary" texts use
deconstructive strategies to subvert systems, binary thinking, hierarchies, key
concepts, etc. These texts are often perceived as "unreadable," "weird,"
"contradictory and incoherent," or "postmodern." These texts are engaged in
"deterritorialzation," a releasing ideas, forms, behaviors, ideologies that were
previously contained (you engage in "deterritorializing" if you choose option
one above). For example, a novel may deconstruct the very idea of a "novel"
in the way it uses language and conventional forms, or a novel may
deconstruct a social category, striving to live on the "border" instead of a
declared territory, or a story may deconstruct the dubious boundary between
public and private history. So, your task is to explain how the "literary" text is
itself engaged in the project of deconstruction. On the other hand, you should
notice the ways in which the text "reterritorializes" or merely presents a new
set of binaries and hierarchies even as it "deterritorializes." Using yet another
set of terms, has the text "decentered" hierarchies and meaning or merely
"recentered" it?

Part Three: Reveal Implications

You now need to show the implications of what you have just done. You are
essentially answering the question, "So you have just demonstrated the
instability or the multiplicity of potential meaning in the poem, ad, film, or
whatever. So what?" Again, you may want to look at Scholes' essay to see
how he uses the results of his deconstructive efforts. To get you started,
please remember that you could answer the question, "What is possible now
that I have problematized these binaries?" (i.e. For Scholes, problematizing
the literature/non-literature binary allows us, among other benefits, to study a
wider range of texts in a literature class and question the ideology of those
who want to make literature a separate category.) Again, who benefits from
keeping these terms separate? Who benefits from the present polarity? Who
loses?

Finally...

Poststructuralist critique is known for its playful use of language as it blurs the
boundaries between critical and creative writing. So, employ the same
"literary" devices and strategies that a "creative writer" would use: narrative,
figurative language (metaphor, simile, pun, allusion, personification, verbal
irony), a range of forms (fable, axiom, epigraph, fragment, parable, collage,
dialogue, multiple column, etc.), self-reflexive remarks (comment on the
very process of using language and making claims) and creative punctuation
(Many writers uses parentheses to multiply the meanings of single words. i.e.
"We are awash in (post)modern (re)presentations." Notice all the different
ways to make sense of that sentence!) Make your own critical analysis a
delight to read. Revel in and exploit the inherent instability and generative
power of language. The bottom line is that you need to "unsettle the relations
between the literary work and the critical text." Deconstruct the very form you
use to make deconstructive insights.

You may want to check out the chapters " Writing as Arranging Fragments,"
"Writing as Traveling," "Writing as Conversing," and "Writing as Any
Metaphor" in my Critical Writing Web Book.