Deconstruction, not Destruction

Although it is an old theory, the idea of 'deconstruction' as posited by Jacques Derrida and others still has worth today.

'Deconstructionism' deals with the idea that there are no overall theories that can properly encapsulate existence. This school of thought came as a reaction to theorists who believed that literary texts are examples of unifying constructs that create understanding. These theories were pushed further with hypotheses that claimed that language itself was without any universal meaning and is a hollow construction that belies true existence.

These theories have often been derided for being elitist and abstract. On the surface, it is very easy to believe methods of deconstruction to be out of touch with common literary practice and common human existence. After all, by claiming that there is no universality in relation to literary texts, one can be seen to ignore the common tropes and form that are latent in countless instance of literature. It seems that we should take a slightly less extreme approach to criticism if we are going to engage with the theories of Derrida.

Indeed, it is important to make the distinction between 'deconstruction' and 'destruction'. We must not completely ignore all aspects of a text, but instead we should reduce them down to their basic form. The value of 'deconstruction' is that it attempts to make room for contrasting theories while looking for an underlying trope common to them all. Instead of forcing writers and texts together, sparing use of 'deconstructionist' approaches will allow a critic to identify the foundations of these texts rather than create a hollow amalgamation of the issues they deal with.

In this way, 'deconstruction' should be identified as another useful band in the spectrum of literary criticism.

-The English Student