POST STRUCTURALISM/ DECONTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

Introduction:
Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction, a modern literary theory, derived from philosophy, emerged
in France in 1960s. The two figures most closely associated with this emergence are ‘Roland
Barthes’ and Jacques Derrida. Barthes’ work around this time began to shift in character and
move from structuralist phase to a post-structuralist phase. His essay ‘The Death of the Author’
is the hinge round which Barthes turns from structuralism to post structuralism. The Philosopher,
Jacques Derrida, who inaugurated poststructuralism in 1960s and became a major influence on
literary studies during 1970s, is the most fundamental key figure in the development of Post-
structuralism. Indeed, the starting point of structuralism may be taken as his 1966 lecture
‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Science. Some other key figures in Post
structuralism are; Luce Irigaray, Geoffrey Hartman,Barbara Johnson and Terry Eagleton.

Definition:
Deconstruction by its very nature as a set of attitudes denies any attempt at comprehensive
definition. However, we may define this as follow:
“The post-structuralist literary critic is engaged in the task of ‘deconstruction’ the text. This
process is given the name ‘deconstruction’, which can roughly be defined as post-structuralism.
It is often referred to as against the grain or reading the text against itself, with the purpose of
knowing the text as it cannot know itself.” (Terry Eagleton’s Definition)
And Derrida has defined deconstructive reading as follow:
“A deconstructive reading, must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer,
between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of language that he
uses…. [It] attempts to make the non-seen accessible to sight. (Of Grammatology, pp.158 and
163).
Nevertheless, deconstruction has a good deal to offer us, but we must first understand
deconstruction’s view of language, language is not the reliable tool of communication we believe
it to be, but rather a fluid, ambiguous domain of complex experience in which ideologies
program us without our being aware of them.

Deconstructing Language:
Deconstruction’s theory of language, is based in the belief that language is much more slippery
and ambiguous than we realize.
As we know that Structuralist and semioticians use the word sign to denote a basic element of
communication, and they define sign by the following formula.
Sign = Signifier (sound, image) + Signified (concept to which the signifier refers)
A word is a linguistic sign. For example if the sign is the word rose, then the signifier is the
group of letters written or pronounced as a unit (rose), and the signified is the rose you picture in
your mind. If the signifier is red rose then the signified is the red rose you picture in your mind.
Of course, in response to the signifier “rose” different people will probably picture different
kinds of roses. And for some people, both of the above signifiers_ “rose” and “red rose” _ will
produce the same signified because these people always picture roses as red roses unless
prompted to do otherwise. So, for deconstruction, language does not consist of the union of
signifiers and signifieds; it consists only of chains of signifiers. To sum up, Derrida argues that
language has two important characteristics
1. Its play of signifiers continually defers, or postpones, meaning.
2. The meaning it (language) seems to have is the result of the differences by which we
distinguish one signifier from another.
He explained this by following formula.
Difference = Differ + Defer.
Moreover, Derrida also borrowed and transformed the idea of binary oppositions_ opposite
words such as good leads to the opposite evil, civilized opposite leads to primitive. Derrida,
noted that these oppositions are also hierarchies. So we may say that language is dynamic,
ambiguous, and unstable, continually disseminating possible meanings.

Deconstructing our World:

It would not be unreasonable to say that it is through our language that we come to conceive and
perceive our world and ourselves. In philosophical terms, for deconstruction, language is our
“ground of being,” from which our experience and knowledge of the world generated, and it is
generally associated with traditional Western Philosophies_ Plato’s Forms, Descartes’ cogito,
structuralism’s innate structures of human consciousness etc. Derrida calls these Philosophies
‘logocentric’ because it places at the center of its understanding of the world concept that
organizes and explains the world for us while remaining outside of the world it organizes and
explains. In other words, Derrida decentered Western philosophy just as Copernicus decentered
the earth in 1600s by asserting that the universe does not revolve around it. In short, according to
deconstruction, one may say that existence has no center, no stable meaning and no fixed ground.

Deconstructing Literature:
If according to deconstruction language is dynamic, ambiguous and unstable, then it should be
no surprise, to learn that literature is as dynamic, ambiguous and unstable as the language it is
composed of. Meaning is not stable element residing in the text, rather, it is created by the
reader in the act of reading. Furthermore, the meaning that is created is not a stable element
capable of producing closure; that is, no interpretation has the final word.
There are generally two main purposes in deconstructing a literary text, and we may see either or
both at work in any given deconstructive reading:
(1) To reveal the text’s undecidability
(2) To reveal the complex operations of the ideologies of which the text is constructed. At this
stage.
To reveal the text’s undecidability is to show that meaning of the text is really an indefinite,
undecidable, plural, conflicting array of possible meanings and that the text, therefore, has no
meaning in the traditional sense of the word, at all.
The other purpose is to see what the text can show us about the ideologies of which it is
constructed. This endeavor usually shows us something about the ways in which ideologies
operate in our own view of the world as well. To understand this kind of deconstruction works
we can also contrast it with New Critical approach, as many New Critical principles are still
taught in the classroom. The deconstructive reading of the poem “Mendig Wall” would help us
to observe that how this poem deconstructs itself and to use our observations to learn about the
ideological operations of language.

Difference between Structuralism and Post Structuralism/Deconstruction:

Structuralism Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction

1.Origin
Structuralism derives from linguistics.
Linguistics is a discipline which has always
been inherently confident about the possibility
of establishing objective knowledge.
2. Tone and Style
Structuralist writings tends towards
abstraction and generalization. It aims
detached, ‘scientific coolness’ of tone.
3. Attitude to language
Structuralist accepts that the world is
constructed through language, in the sense
that we do not have access to reality other
than through the linguistic medium.
4. Project
Structuralism questions our way of
structuring and categorizing reality, and
prompts us to break free of habitual modes of
perception or categorization.
1. Origin
Post-structuralism derives ultimately from
philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline which
has always tended to emphasize the difficulty
of achieving secure knowledge about things.
2. Tone and Style
Deconstruction tends to be much more
emotive. Often the tone is urgent and the style
is flamboyant and showy.
3. Attitude to language
On contrast, deconstruction is much more
fundamentalist in insisting upon the
consequences of the view that, in effect,
reality itself is textual.
4. Project
While, Post-structuralism is much more
fundamental. Its torch of skepticism burns
away the intellectual ground on which the
Western Civilization is built

Conclusion:
So, in the light of above given discussion we may say that, Poststructuralism or deconstruction is
a school of thought that responded negatively to structuralism’s insistence on frameworks and
structures as access points to “truth.” Poststructuralism, or deconstruction, emphasized the
instability of meaning. While structuralism regarded language as a closed system,
poststructuralism identified an inevitable gap between signifier and signified. In
poststructuralism, the reader and not the writer became paramount: the author’s intended
meaning, because it could never be truly known, was less important than the reader’s perceived
meaning. Like other postmodern theories that interrogated cultural assumptions,
poststructuralists believe in studying both the text and the systems of knowledge that produced
that text.