OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the lesson, the learners are expected to:

a. understand what deconstructive analysis is;

b. assess the steps in making a deconstructive analysis;
c. discuss the Blame Game analysis; and
d. create their own deconstructive analysis.

PRE-DISCUSSION

The fundamental logic of deconstruction is that no text carries meanings or messages that
are beyond interpretation. Derridean deconstruction created a fissure within the intellectual
community. It was subjected to aggressive and hostile attacks from established academics and
philosophers. Derrida was accused of being deliberately complex and perplexing. His theory was
even criticised as misguiding young intellectuals and students.

Critics accuse deconstruction of diminishing our capacity to appreciate and interpret

literature. And almost everyone complains of its obscure and confusing terminology. David Hirsch’s
The Deconstruction of Literature, John Ellis’s Against Deconstruction, and David Lehman’s Signs of
the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man, for example, all question the validity of this
approach.

LESSON OUTLINE

What is Decronstructive Analysis?

Jacques Derrida, the 20th century French literary theorist, pioneered the school of thought
in literature and philosophy known as “deconstructionism.” Deconstructionists were part of a larger
movement, known as the “post-modern” movement. This type of theory seeks to find out the holistic
meaning of a piece of work by first examining its smaller parts. Its intent is not to find truth; in fact,
some theorists suggest that there is no real truth, only ever-changing paradigms. If you are asked to
write a deconstructionist, or analysis, paper, keep some guidelines in mind.

HOW TO WRITE A DECO ANALYSIS PAPER ( https://penandthepad.com/write-deconstruction-paper-

8397633.html )

Steps to make a Deconstructive Analysis

 Pre-writing stage
The prewriting stage is the best time to play with the binary oppositions that you
find. Binary oppositions are two concepts that are set as opposites of each other. For
example, light and dark (colors), men/women (gender), and nature and culture. You can
determine which is privileged by asking what the text accepts as normal, natural, worthy
of being or doing

The next step in “Making a Deconstructive Analysis,” is to reverse the terms, thereby
creating an inversion of the recognizable world, a new world that is parallel to the world
 you are used to. This, in turn, allows you to look at the work in an unaccustomed manner.
You can also look for contradictions in the binary terms by noting how each defines itself
against its opposite or determine how they supplement each other by showing how a
term that seems complete in itself is actually derived from something else.

Another prewriting activity involves examining the language of the text. You can
begin by looking for paradoxes and contradictions, then move on to examining the
figurative language. By making a list of metaphors, for example, you have information
that may reveal slippages of the language. Because figures of speech do not mean what
they literally say, there is room for them to misstate what the author intended for them to
say. You may find it helpful to put the phrases on paper and then play with their
possibilities in writing.

A more global view of the text involves looking for shifts in point of view, time, voice,
vocabulary, or tone, because such shifts may signal that the narrative or the narrator
(speaker) of the work is not unified or stable. What seems to be coherent is actually
fraught with contradictions and conflicts. When these cannot be resolved, the text is said
to have reached the point at which it deconstructs itself, a point known as aporia.

 Drafting and Revising

The Drafting and Revising are divided into three parts: the Introduction, the Body,
and the Conclusion.

The Introduction – the introduction may simply be a restatement of the usual

perception of what a work means or of how it operates. By explaining how a story
is usually read or how a character is normally perceived, you have a basis for
deconstructing those views.

The Body – This will demonstrate the limited perspective of the conventional
reading. You may want to show how the ideology that the text tries to support is
not supportable, an approach that is popular with Marxist and feminist
deconstructive critics. In this case, as you study a particular text, you will also be
deconstructing the larger contexts in which it exists. You will be suggesting, or
overtly stating, that the order supported by it is also open to question, perhaps
itself fraught with inconsistencies and illusory stability.

This approach will take the discussion a step further by showing how meaning is
not simply an either-or situation but an unending series of possibilities, leaving
meaning ultimately beyond deciding. In either case, you will want to demonstrate
how and where the text falls apart because of its own inconsistencies,
misstatements, or contradictions.

The following questions can help you generate the basis of your discussion:
 What is the primary binary opposition in the text?
 Which terms in the oppositions are privileged?
 What elements in the work support the privileged terms?
 What statement of values or beliefs emerges from the privileged terms?
  Where is the statement of values or beliefs contradicted by characters,
events, or statements in the text?
 What new possibilities of understanding emerge when you reverse the
binary oppositions?
 What contradictions of language, image, or event do you notice?
 Where are the figures of speech so ambiguous that they suggest several
(perhaps contradictory) meanings?
 Why can you not make a definitive statement about the meaning of the
text?

The Conclusion – If you have begun by rehearsing the conventional reading of the
text under analysis, an effective way to end your essay is by comparing that
understanding with your deconstructive analysis, pointing out why the earlier one
is not definitive. If you prefer, you may reiterate the several different ways in
which the text can be read, thereby making the point that meaning is always
provisional, always ready to give way to other meaning.

MODEL STUDENT ANALYSIS

Sypnosis of Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace”

A young and beautiful girl, Mathilde Loisel, is the wife of a clerical worker. She is charming
but feels as though she “married beneath her.” She is poor and dreams of luxury. Her husband,
Monsieur Loisel, does all he can to please her, even giving up his desire for a rifle to make her happy.
Mathilde is envious of the wealthy and feels “there is nothing more humiliating than looking poor in
the middle of a lot of rich women.” She feels “tormented and insulted” by the “poorness of her
house” and the worn-out, simple appearance of the items within it. Mathilde is extremely jealous of
Madame Forestier, her wealthy friend from school, and even avoids visiting her because she feels
overcome with sadness and misery after a visit.

Mathilde and her husband, a clerk in the Ministry of Education, receive an invitation to the
Ministry ball, hosted by George Rampanneau, the Minister of Education, and his wife. The event is
reserved for a select few, and Mathilde's husband worked hard to secure an invitation, hoping to
make his wife happy. However, she is upset, worrying about not having anything to wear to a formal
event. Although her husband reassures her that a dress she already owns is suitable, she convinces
him to give her the money he has been saving to purchase a rifle so she can buy a new dress.

In an effort to feel as though she is as well-off as she dreams, Mathilde borrows a necklace
from one of her wealthy friends from school to accent her outfit for the ball. The kind and generous
woman, Madame Forestier, happily obliges and lets Mathilde pick the jewelry of her liking. Mathilde
selects a diamond necklace.

Mathilde and her husband attend the Ministry ball. At the affair, she is the most attractive
woman present. Other women stare at her with envy, and the men in attendance are eager to dance
with her as she waltzes the night away while her husband dozes off in a small, deserted room with a
few other husbands.
 Mathilde considers the night a success, having garnered the attention and admiration “so
dear to her feminine heart.” As her husband fetches a warm and humble coat for her to leave the
ball in, she flees in shame, hoping others don't recognize her as they don their costly furs.

In her rush, she hurries down a staircase and frantically looks for a carriage to ride home in. Back at
their door in the Rue des Martyrs, Mathilde feels hopeless as her night ends and as her husband
turns his attention to the day and his work. As Mathilde undresses, she notices the necklace is no
longer around her neck. Her husband searches the folds of her dress, the streets, the police station,
and the cab companies while she sits in shock, huddled and worried. Returning without finding the
necklace, her husband suggestions she writes to her friend, Madame Forestier, and tell her they are
fixing the clasp on the necklace.

A week passes. The couple loses hope, while the signs of worry and stress visually age
Mathilde. After visiting several jewelers, they find a string of diamonds that resemble the lost
necklace. Negotiating for thirty-six thousand francs, they spend her husband's inheritance and
borrow the rest of the money to replace the necklace. Mathilde's husband “mortgaged the whole
remaining years of his existence” to replace the necklace.

As Mathilde returns the necklace, Madame Forestier doesn't even open the box to see its
contents. Madame Loisel, along with her husband, spends the rest of her days working, experiencing
the harsh reality of poverty. Both she and her husband work every day to pay off everything,
including interest. After ten years and a hard life, they are successful. But during this time, Mathilde
ages. Her youth and femininity gone, she looks strong, hard, and weathered by poverty and labor.

While wondering what her life would have been had she not lost that necklace, Mathilde
runs into her old friend, Madame Forestier, who is still young, beautiful, and fresh. Hardly
recognizing her, Madame Forestier is shocked to see how Mathilde aged. Mathilde explains how she
lost the borrowed necklace and has spent the past years paying off the replacement. Her friend
clasps Mathilde's hands and tells Mathilde the borrowed necklace was an imitation, a fake, worth
only a few hundred francs.
What is Deconstruction?

The theory of deconstruction has subsequently influenced different branches of humanities and even
science and mathematics. Deconstruction theory remains one of the defining ideas of postmodern
philosophy. Deconstructionism in literature is now a widely used methodology in literary criticism.

( https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/english-literature/literary-criticism-and-theory/
deconstruction/ )

Deconstruction: Theory

Derrida's concept of deconstruction is based on the concept of Zerstörung or destruktion by

the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Deconstruction was initially a philosophical
proposition but gained a foothold in literary analysis and the interpretation of texts in religion, law,
and several other social institutions. Today, the term 'deconstruction' is used in mathematics and
even gastronomy.

Deconstruction: Meaning

Derridean deconstruction is sometimes described as bringing a literary approach to

philosophy, a way of reading philosophical texts like literature, using methods of literary analysis.
Irrespective of how accurate this view of deconstruction is, Derrida is now a prominent figure in
literary analysis and criticism itself.

Characteristics of Deconstruction

Central to the theory of deconstruction is the new concept of différance. As is often the case
with Derrida, he coined this term based on the French term différence by misspelling the word.

Deconstruction is a type of theory that arose from post-structuralism, which asserts that since
systems are always changing, it is impossible to describe a complete system, such as one that insists
on the association of darkness with evil and vice versa. As such, post-structuralists also view subjects
—subjects such as readers—as caught up in the forces that produce the very structures they study as
objects of knowledge.

( https://writingcommons.org/section/research/research-methods/textual-methods/literary-
criticism/post-structuralist-deconstructive-criticism/ )

Différance

Derrida intended the concept of différance to demonstrate the limits of phonocentrism.

Derrida developed Saussure's concept of sign, only to open up new questions about the way
meaning is created and the concept of difference itself. The term différance simultaneously refers to
the difference and deferral of meaning. In fact, Derrida describes the concept as an infinite series in
the chain of signification.
 The term différance sounds exactly the same in French as différence. The two terms are
indistinct in speech and can only be differentiated in writing. Thus, Derrida's term différance
showcases the complexity of the relationship between speech and sound, and the concept of
difference Saussurean linguistics is based on.

The fundamental logic of deconstruction is that no text carries meanings or messages that
are beyond interpretation. As we already mentioned, Derridean deconstruction created a fissure
within the intellectual community. It was subjected to aggressive and hostile attacks from established
academics and philosophers. Derrida was accused of being deliberately complex and perplexing. His
theory was even criticised as misguiding young intellectuals and students.

Critics accuse deconstruction of diminishing our capacity to appreciate and interpret

literature. And almost everyone complains of its obscure and confusing terminology. David Hirsch’s
The Deconstruction of Literature, John Ellis’s Against Deconstruction, and David Lehman’s Signs of
the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man, for example, all question the validity of this
approach.