Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:50:24.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discipline of Deconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Jeffrey T. Nealon
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay reexamines the institutional rise and fall of deconstruction as a reading method in American literary criticism. Deconstruction was, to put it bluntly, commodified for an American market, simplified and watered down for use in how-to books that gave (and continue to give) a generation of literature students an overview of what was supposedly Derrida's work without paying corresponding attention to his texts. The deconstructive criticism of de Man and Hillis Miller is too often conflated with Derrida's thought—especially surrounding the question of undecidability—and this confusion misses essential questions that Derrida poses to any critical enterprise. For rhetorical deconstructive criticism, undecidability is the end revealed by reading, whereas for Derrida undecidability is only the first movement in a necessarily double economy. The essay concludes with a discussion of Derrida's own inscription within the institutional debate over deconstruction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 107 , Issue 5 , October 1992, pp. 1266 - 1279
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Cited

Arac, Jonathan. Critical Genealogies. New York: Columbia UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Bennington, Geoffrey. “Aberrations: De Man (and) the Machine.” Waters and Godzich 209–20.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, Robert. “Deconstruction and the Possibility of Ethics.” Deconstruction and Philosophy. Ed. Sallis, John. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987. 122–12.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, Robert, and Wood, David, eds. Derrida and Differance. Coventry, Eng.: Parousia, 1985.Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold, et al., eds. Deconstruction and Criticism. New York: Seabury, 1979.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. Allegories of Reading. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. Blindness and Insight. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. “An Interview with Paul de Man.” Ed. Stefano Rossi. Nuova corrente 31 (1984): 303–30.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. “Shelley Disfigured.” Bloom et al. 39–73.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Acts of Literature. Ed. Attridge, Derek. New York: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Biodegradables: Seven Diary Fragments.” Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Critical Inquiry 15 (1989): 812–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “But, Beyond….” Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Critical Inquiry 13 (1986): 155–15.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Dissemination. Trans. Johnson, Barbara. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Glas. Trans. Leavey, John P. Jr., and Rand, Richard. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1986.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Ja, ou le faux bond.” Diagraphe 11 (1977): 84–121.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Letter to a Japanese Friend.” Bernasconi and Wood 1–8.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Like the Sound of the Sea Deep within a Shell: Paul de Man's War.” Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Critical Inquiry 14 (1988): 590–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. Trans. Weber, Samuel. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1988.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Living On—Border Lines.” Trans. James Hulbert. Bloom et al. 75–176.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Bass, Alan. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Memoires for Paul de Man. Ed. Ronell, Avital and Cadava, Eduardo. Trans. Eduardo Cadava et al. New York: Columbia UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “On Colleges and Philosophy.” Postmodernism: ICA Documents. Ed. Appignanesi, Lisa. London: Free Association, 1989. 209–20.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Positions. Trans. Bass, Alan. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “The Principle of Reason: The University in the Eyes of Its Pupils.” Trans. Catherine Porter and Edward P. Morris. Diacritics 12.3 (1983): 3–20.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Psyche: Inventions of the Other.” Trans. Catherine Porter. Waters and Godzich 25–65.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Racism's Last Word.” Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Critical Inquiry 12 (1985): 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “The Retrait of Metaphor.” Trans. Frieda Gardner et al. Enclitic 2.2 (1978): 3–33.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Sendoffs.” Trans. Thomas Pepper. Yale French Studies 77 (1990): 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Signature, Event, Context.” Derrida, Margins 307–30.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Bass, Alan. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. GRE Literature in English Test, Descriptive Booklet, 1989–91. Princeton: ETS, 1989.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.Google Scholar
Fynsk, Christopher. “A Decelebration of Philosophy.” Diacritics 8.2 (1978): 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasché, Rodolphe. “Deconstruction as Criticism.” Glyph 6 (1979): 177–215.Google Scholar
Gasché, Rodolphe. “In-difference to Philosophy: De Man on Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche.” Waters and Godzich 259–25.Google Scholar
Gasché, Rodolphe. The Tain of the Mirror. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Lawrence, Frederick G. Cambridge: MIT P, 1990.Google Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey. Preface. Bloom et al. vii–ix.Google Scholar
Harvey, Irene. “The Differance between Derrida and de Man.” The Textual Sublime: Deconstruction and Its Differences. Ed. Silverman, Hugh and Aylesworth, Gary. Albany: State U of New York P, 1990. 73–86.Google Scholar
Johnson, Barbara. “The Wake of Deconstruction.” School of Criticism and Theory, Dartmouth Coll. Hanover, NH, July 1992.Google Scholar
Miller, J. Hillis. “The Critic as Host.” Bloom et al. 217–21.Google Scholar
Miller, J. Hillis. “The Search for Grounds in Literary Study.” Rhetoric and Form: Deconstruction at Yale. Ed. Davis, Robert Con and Schleifer, Ronald. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1985. 9–36.Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London: Methuen, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Baskin, Wade. New York: McGraw, 1966.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Jane P. “The Reader in History.” Reader-Response Criticism. Ed. Tompkins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. 201–20.Google Scholar
Waters, Lindsay, and Godzich, Wlad, eds. Reading de Man Reading. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989.Google Scholar