Throughout the course of this course of study, Literary Criticism, we have learned about a number of various theories related to literature criticism. From New Critics to New Poetics, we have seen the vast variance of opinion that covers all of literary criticism. To understand this variance of opinion in criticism, one cannot help but focus on the turning point in the tide of criticism, Deconstruction.

As with every progression of thought throughout history, each subsequent theory must be discarded as it is disproven in order for progress to be made. To understand Deconstruction, we must first have a basic understanding of the theories that came before. In this way, a basic understanding of the histories behind Modernism and Structuralism help us to understand the reactions that Deconstruction makes as a theory.

It is common for a scholar to hear the word "Deconstruction," and have an instant reaction of fear and foreboding. These feelings come from the reader’s inexperience with the terms and organization used by these critics. While these are challenges that we all face when looking at Deconstruction, it is good for a scholar to struggle to understand because of the usefulness of this theory. Deconstruction is especially useful when dealing with other postmodern theories such as Feminism and Marxism because of the close ties between these theories. (Tyson 241)

By understanding the advent of this pivotal theory, we must understand pre-Deconstruction; the archaic Modernism, and post-Deconstruction; Feminism, Marxism, and the rest of the postmodern theories. (Klarges)

In the beginning was Modernism. While this seems to be a very simple statement, it carries with it a wealth of turmoil that encompasses any study of literature, more precisely the art of criticism. The philosophy of Modernism was build on the foundations put forth by the French philosopher Rene Decartes. His ideas came to form the very principles great minds such as Benjamin Franklin, Sir Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon continued to maintain years later. (Bressler 116)

While Modernism reigned in intellectual circles for hundreds of years, the philosophy would eventually be questioned and found to be flawed by a linguist named Ferdinand de Saussure. Thus, Structuralism is born with the advent of Saussure’s Course of General Linguistics in the early 1900’s. (Atkins 138) As this theory of Structuralism appeared in Western philosophy, two main points of conflict were created between the old and the newer theories. The first point of conflict evolves around what each theory says attributes to the source of their truth and knowledge. Beginning with Decartes, the Modernists believed that the "self," or the individual mind, was the beginning of knowledge and understanding. Decartes believed that the individual mind was the means by which the world could be experienced, and believed that a rational look on the world would produce a truth that all Modernist yearned for. Years later, the great minds above mentioned: Franklin, Newton, and Bacon, all used Decartes view of the "self" to bring their passion of science into the forefront of intellectual pursuit. (Bressler 116-117) In contrast, Structuralism denied the "self", stating that the structure of language was the center from which truth came. The rational senses could not ascertain true reality because reality only existed in the complex workings of the structure of language. (Klarges)

The second point of conflict centers on the idea of the mimetic system, to which the Modernist philosophy based much of its assumption. The mimetic theory exists because in earlier human history it became necessary for humans to communicate in more diverse ways. Long ago, humans would communicate about objects in their reality by pointing at them in the presence of the listener. This idea can be understood in the example of a cave dweller pointing to a leg of meat to indicate he wanted to eat it. As more complicated ideas arose, however, the need for a way to communicate objects without being able to point them out in the present became overwhelming. The human race was forced to invent words to represent what they wanted to communicate, that is, they made a word equal something in reality. In the example used before, the cave dweller could now say, "I want meat," even if there was no meat around to point at. (Keesey 107-108)

The problems with the mimetic theory, the Structuralists posited, was that they believe humans can only experience reality through the structure of language, and not through the rational senses as the Modernist once believed. Saussure believed that a word, (which he called a sign), equaled a relationship between a signifier and a signified. A signifier is a verbal sound spoken by the speaker, the signified is the concept to which the speaker is referring to. In this relationship, the spoken signifier pointed to the absent signified, which was only the representation in the mind of the listener to the referent, or the real object in nature. Saussure also believed that while the signifier could change, the signifier was always constant. An example of this theory would be the spoken word "dog" would be the signifier, the image of a dog in the listeners mind would be the signified. The Spanish word for dog, perro, is an example of how a second signifier, different from the first, can still eliciting the same signified. (Henderson)

So Saussure and the Structuralists had in effect debunked the Modernist theory of reality, truth, and knowledge. This led scholars into what is know as the Postmodern age, and while it had obliterated Modernism, the foundations had been laid for a rebuttal of structurealism. As early as 1873, Friedrich Nietzsche laid the groundwork to prove that the Structuralist philosophical theory was flawed and incomplete, that there were problems with language, and that languages only touch with reality was through the metaphor. "Metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities." In the Structuralists’ attempts to debunk Modernism, they had ultimately put forth an incomplete theory that could easily be disproved and debunked itself. (Booker 55)

While Structuralism’s theory managed to point out the shortcomings of Modernism, it ultimately failed to replace the Modernist theory with a sound argument. Then, in 1966, Jacques Derrida, in a paper entitled ‘Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Science’ given at symposium at John Hopkins University, put forth a philosophical theory that would change the world. (Widdowson 170)

Called Deconstruction, Derrida’s theory obliterated Modernism and served as an extension and correction of the theory put forth by Saussure. (Keesey 379) What is deconstructive literary theory? This paper will serve to explain the formation of Deconstruction, its general statements about language, such as absolute truth, signs, and privilege, and serve to help the reader understand to what effect Deconstruction theory exists today.

The tension between the Structuralists and the Deconstructionalists is seen in a variety of points that the Structuralists themselves have attacked the Modernist philosophy. First, Derrida states that Saussure was only half right in his debunking of the mimetic theory. While Derrida agrees with Saussure that a sign that refers to a signifier over a signified, he believes that Saussure did not take the idea far enough. The signified, Derrida argues, is as vague and uncertain as the signifier that points to it. Derrida points out that when a person hears a signifier, the signified that comes up in their mind could be totally different from what the speaker intended. An example of this would be a person uttering the sign "rose." The speaker may be refering to a rose that is red, for that is the signified that he thinks of, but the listener may be thinking of a yellow, pink, or white rose. (Tyson 244)

Derrida posits that there are many signifieds that exist in language, and instead of the equation; sign = signifier + signified, the equation is more like sign = signifier + signified +signified +signified..., on to infinity, language can not be seen as static, but rather dynamic and "slippery." (Tyson 244) One of the reasons Derrida believes this to exist is through a fact of intertextuality, that seems to ignore by the structuralist.

The word intertextuality, used by Derrida, refers to the idea that all signifieds are connected in some way to the every signified that has ever come before it. The structuralists themselves posit this idea in believing that all texts must work in the system of language, and that it is the text that speaks, and not the author. (Booker 58) What the structuralists seem to simply sidestep is the problem of every text being under the authority of language, thus "Every text, being itself the intertext of another text, belongs to the intertextual…" (Booker 58)

Another reason Derrida argues with structuralists is that they are still using the archaic though of using centers. Derrida states that all of Western philosophy, (including Modernism and Structuralism) is doom because of their belief that there must be a center from which their truth and knowledge comes from. In the Modernist theory, the center was the "self" and with the Structuralist theory, it was the structure of language. Derrida calls these centers the transcendental signified. These transcendental signifieds are described "as the ultimate source of meaning that cannot be represented by any other signified." (Klarges2)

A great example of this would be that of God. God is an object that cannot be represented by any other signified, yet God is that which all other signifiers ultimately refer to. (Klarge2) These transcendental signifieds would provide ultimate meaning, and be the origins of origins. The meaning of these signifieds must come from within itself, and not from the difference it has with other signifieds, a method all other signifieds must use. Western philosophy has a tendency to try to find these transcendental signifieds, which he calls logocentrism. Derrida believes that we try to find transcendental signifieds in our lives because we yearn for something to "guarantee to those who believe in it that they do exist and have meaning." (Bressler 124) Derrida calls this phenomenon totalization and believes this to be impossible. (Klarges2) In order to do this, on must transcend language so that the very first signified could exist, separate from language. (Keesey 376)

Derrida believes Western philosophies trust in these transcendental signifieds through logocentrism to be its greatest illusion, for human words and human concepts define every center. (Tyson 249) Every time scholars have tried to establish a though or idea as their center, the ambiguity of language cause them to unconsciously decenter their old way of thinking to that of the new way. Thus, the transcendental signified is being compared to another signified, making it no longer transcendent. This idea is best illustrated in the history of English literature. The Romantics wanted to decenter their old transcendental signified, which was believed at the time to give truth through reason, in favor of a more emotion, individual self. (Bressler 124) In this way, we encounter a never ending chain of transcendental signifieds that seems to contradict the structuralists point of view.

Because this idea of transcendental signifieds is effectively dismissed, Derrida begins to question whether there is truth at all in this system of language. Since the time this flawed system of centers was put forth back in the time of Aristotle, Western philosophy has been operation in "dualistic thinking." This is also called the principal of non-contradiction, and it refers to the idea that an object can not both have and not have a characteristic. (Booker 59) This leads Western philosophers to create what Derrida calls binary oppositions.

Binary oppositions is the formula that appears as we look at the centers humans create and the opposite centers that Western philosophy claim are of a lesser, unequal status. An example of this would be that we value truth over deception, intelligence over ignorance, etc. Derrida says that we privilege the above term over the bottom term, which is unprivileged. (Berman 221) Derrida argues that in since language is "slippery," we find that in these binary oppositions there is no true distinction between the two terms, only a relationship. We see that in truth, there can always be a little deception, in intelligence there is always found a mark of ignorance. (Widdowson 173)

Derrida posits that the relationship between the two objects is both working in a flawed logocentric world, and being caught in the circumstance of language. We are able to flip the oppositions to form not only a very fragile basis to disprove structuralists view that structure produces meaning, but a new way of looking at our ideals in society. Derrida, however, does not posit that we simply restate the new opposition, making it a new center, for that would be falling into structuralist analysis and would defeat the purpose of deconstruction. Deconstruction simply looks at all sides of a binary to see all perspectives, breaking from its logocentric background. (Widdowson 172)

Derrida quantifies this theory by showing how some of the longest held binaries in Western philosophy can be flipped to show a new perspective and take into account the mystery of language. One of the most common binaries is a opposition Derrida calls phonocentrism. Phonocentrism is that binary that privedges speech over writing. Derrida says that the reason this occurs is that speech seems to indicate presence, while writing seems to portray that absence of the originator of the words. This leads Derrida to acknowledge the binary of presence over absence as well. (Murfin 305) Because of this binary, speech is privileged because in speech occurs in presence, but writing is just the supplementation of speech, a recording of absence though. Because of these thoughts put forward by a logocentric philosophy, we see that through these two binaries the transcendental signified "self" is being centered. Derrida insists that we must flip these binaires and decenter the "self" in the ideas that we struggle to shed from our logocentric past. (Lye)

In order to do this in the case of the privileging in the binary of speech over language, Derrida comes up with a redefinition of speech in our society. Derrida states that for too long speech has been given dominance over writing because of the faulty ideas of presence over absence. Derrida states that writing is more in tune with what he calls play. (Bressler 125) Play has several meanings: it means to play around with the language, to realize that words can have connotation, double meanings, etc, and also the play of space, "like the play in a car’s steering wheel. Derrida wants to show us that interpretation of our language in literature involves a kind of "game" in which we much keep an open mind as to what a word or sentence may point to. We must also realize that a vast uncertainty exists in our language that leaves the door open for a wide variety of interpretations to come occur, a huge variety of responses to a text. (Cowles 113)

Because of this vide variety of interpretation, a person using language can not help but misspeak. (Routledge) Because writing is more in tune with this true idea of play with its embracing of the absense over the presence, Derrida states that he is able to flip the binary so that writing is now more priveldges over speech, and that writing is not longer just a supplementation of speech. (Cowles 115) In fact, writing actually becomes a suppliementation of writing, called arch-writing. (Bressler 126-127)

Ultimately, if any binary can be flipped and every transcendental signified can be found to be flawed, what kind of meaning can we obtain from the world. Derrida comes to the idea that because the binaries oppositions can be flipped, and therefore cannot posit the existence of any kind of transcendental signified, the only way we can make meaning out of the slippery language we live in is through a term called differance. Meaning between signifieds and binary oppositions must be viewed in how they are different from each other, not in how they are the same as pre-Deconstructive posit. (Henderson)

This seems to be quite a subtle statement, but it holds great meaning for our society, and has changed the way our civilization now thinks compared to a hundred years before. With the advent of this difference, comes the new ideas of tolerance, a lack of absolute truth and transcendental signifieds, and they idea of intertextuality. (Bressler 129)

Because the idea of transcendental signifieds is found lacking, the view of God has changed radically over the last fifty years. Atheism and a loss of respect for God stems from the deconstruction movement, into an age now known as Postmodernism And because meaning can only be found in difference, knowledge can not longer be found in the individual pursuit of knowledge, for it must spring from another source. This points back to Derrida’s use of intertextuality to show the carelessness of the structuralists.

The biggest thing that Deconstructionist insist is that there is no absolute truth, no correct interpretation, and no right answer. The referential attitude of our modern society has caused scholarship to deem tolerance of ideas in all branches of discipline. All have the right to their answer and all have the right to be heard.

We cannot escape using deconstructive criticsm in our world, nor can we escape the fact that the world around us is defined by words. As Derrida himself once said, ""Everything is a text; this is a text," he said, waving his arm…" (Rawlings) But what are we to do? How do we know what to interpret, what is truth, if there is any? Derrida suggests a term bricolage, meaning literally in French, "do-it-yourself." (Altavista) This can be illustrated in an example of tinker toys. You might not have a whole set to work with, some of the pieces are broken or lost. You may feel tempted to just go out and buy a new set, but instead you incorporate other toys into the equation to make what you want. (Klarges2) This means that instead of believing in nothing at all, you must construct your own meaning out of life by taking things from philosophies to complete the whole, instead of continuing to just keep decentering yourself.

While Deconstruction is thought of by many scholars as being a very forboding and exhaustive experience, the time and effort it take to understand this theory becomes worthwhile in the understanding of other postmodern theories that base their ideal principals on the work of Jacques Derrida.