On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism By Jonathan Culler
With an emphasis on readers and reading, Jonathan Culler considered deconstruction in terms of the questions raised by psychoanalytic, feminist, and reader response criticism. On Deconstruction is both an authoritative synthesis of Derrida's thought and an analysis of the often problematic relation between his philosophical writings and the work of literary critics. Culler's book is an indispensable guide for anyone interested in understanding modern critical thought. This edition marks the twenty fifth anniversary of the first publication of this landmark work and includes a new preface by the author that surveys deconstruction's history since the 1980s and assesses its place within cultural theory today. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism
As Cullers himself tells this book is a sequel of his Structuralist Poetics but with different methods and conclusions. In the 80ths write about critical theory is no longer to introduce unfamiliar questions, methods, and principles, but to intervene in a lively and confusing debate. This is the special point about this book.
The reader finds an account of what Culler considers the most vital and significant in recent theoretical writing and undertake an exposition of issues often seem poorly undertood. For it brings up debate, On deconstruction is provocative and demands some effort from the reader. It is certainly not a book for begginners The theory and criticism of recent years is discussed focusing on deconstruction as the principal source of energy and innovation. He offers a detailed exposition of its ideas and methods, defining its relation to other strands of contemporary criticism, and assessing its implications for literary studies.
With emphasis on readers and reding, Culler considers deconstruction, in terms of the questions raised by psychoanalytic, feminist, and reader response criticism. He then turns to a systematic analysis of deconstruction, drawing together the disparate and difficult writings of Jacques Derrida and the working out the implications of his approach for the concepts and methods that literary critics have relied on.
Surveying the variations and achievements of American deconstructive criticism, the author clarifies the procedures and assumptions of several interpretative essays, giving special attention to the work of Paul de Man. Not an easy book but surely a good deal for those who search for a better understanding of the post structuralist critics point of view and methods. Give a try! Paperback I'm not an academic, and really am interested in how language works, sign systems, just as interesting topics that help me think clearly. That said, this was a bit dense and academic for me at times. At other times, the ideas were powerful and clear. I've read other works by Culler, and it is his clear teaching style that lead me to this one. For a casual student though, all the references to references to source material might get tiring. This was worth the read, as I did learn, but I took on a little than I bargained for. Paperback When Jacques Derrida introduced his theory of the deconstruction of literary texts in 1966, there was a general rush by academics to welcome his contribution and make instant use of it. They were entranced by its ability to uncover what they saw as a hidden meaning that lay tantalizingly close just under the surface of that text. Further, they could not resist using Derrida's new and mysterious use of convoluted and arcane terminology. In ON DECONSTRUCTION, Jonathan Culler takes a different tack in presenting less of a defense of deconstruction but on a linked series of analyses and anecdotes that in his mind justifies deconstruction as a legitimate tool of literary theory. Culler's efforts, however, fall short of his aims.
Culler might have had success had he addressed the legitimate concerns of deconstruction's detractors. Typical of such criticisms is John Ellis, who, in his AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION, notes three objections. First, whenever a deconstructionist applies Derrida's theory, that approach never varies regardless of the type, nature, or complexity of the text, thus calling into question whether the resulting paired opposites do little than reduce the complexity of the text to a lower level of simplicity. Second, deconstructionists in general and Culler in particular are fond of grounding their vocabulary in a manner that overly uses such evocative words as unmasking disruptive subverting and challenging in an effort to invest their respective analyses with a patina of powerfully exhilarating prose that suggests that they are heirs to a tool that only they know. And third, related to the psychologically loaded use of words is the tendency of deconstructionists to express themselves in an oblique language that is very nearly indecipherable to all readers but themselves. When they are called to explain why their language must be couched in such dense prose, their typical response is to complain that reducing the complexity of the language is to reduce the legitimacy of the theory itself. And that, counter the opponents is exactly the point. After reading Culler, one is left with judging the usefulness of deconstruction based only on his chosen points with the previously mentioned criticisms going unanswered.
Culler starts his book with an overview of Reader Response and feminist critical theories. In the former case, he notes the need for an interaction between reader and text. In the latter he stresses the need to consider the gender of the reader in that there is a male way to read and a female way. The common link between the two is that Culler sees that both schools displace or undo the system of concepts or procedures that mark them, which coincidentally enough is the basis for most deconstructive thought.
Oddly enough, Culler, despite his vigorous defense of deconstruction is not the favored poster boy of other deconstructionists. They object to his too frequent bouts of blunt honesty when he points out both sides of the critical issue of deconstruction's legitimacy. A typical example of Culler undercutting himself is Deconstruction has no better theory of truth. It does not develop a new philosophical framework or solution but moves back and forth with a nimbleness it hopes will prove strategic. (155) Such honesty is indeed refreshing and should Culler wish to address certain other critiques of deconstruction in a future edition, then that edition would prove useful than this one. Paperback
