Practice Passage Test - 8 | Practice Passages for MCAT PDF Download

Deconstructionism, when applied to the field of literary criticism, presents a paradox within a paradox. It posits that all forms of communication, including historical narratives, are essentially masked expressions of self-revelation. Due to its subjective nature, textual meaning remains unfixed, leading to the likelihood of misinterpretation. Originating in Paris and claiming universality, deconstructionism possesses a visible historical trajectory. It serves as a manifestation of existential concerns regarding presence, absence, reality, and appearance. Structuralism, with its focus on semantics and symbolism, played a crucial role in the development of deconstructionism. From these foundations, deconstructionism derived its fundamental premise: the perpetual shifting of subjectivity and the futility of labeling reality. 

This premise reflects the disillusionment stemming from the decline of enlightened humanism and idealistic Marxism, which were significant influences in twentieth-century European thought. Despite its origins, deconstructionism found a prominent place in the United States, a nation historically associated with the construction of arbitrary meanings. Jacques Derrida, a leading proponent, famously referred to America as deconstruction. In the 1970s, deconstructionism emerged as a replacement for the declining "new criticism" movement in the humanities. However, what initially started as brilliant and creative analytical performances eventually transformed into classroom pedagogy. Seminar rooms on campuses worldwide became sites for deconstructionist practice, resembling a process of decoding hidden messages sent by distant adversaries—the writers themselves. Deconstructionism assumed increasingly grandiose aspirations, considering the history of literature as inseparable from the history of criticism. 

It aimed to convert every aspect of culture into social commentary, establishing connections with other radical philosophies such as sexual and racial politics, which also challenged the sanctity of textual meaning. Deconstructionism presented itself as a supra-ideological mode of analysis, exposing ideological deviations in others while claiming to be devoid of any ideology of its own. Any resistance encountered by deconstructionists was often dismissed as narrow-minded ignorance. As their approach gained traction, neodeconstructionists emerged, offering critical services by demythologizing, decanonizing, dephallicizing, dehegemonizing, and defaming literature. According to deconstructionists, literature had been produced by entirely inappropriate individuals for entirely inappropriate reasons. 

Consequently, the remnants of literature would consist of a few fragments of indecipherable discourse and worn-out book bindings. This frenzy of deconstructionism was likened to the gatherings of the Modern Language Association, termed conferences. It is essential to reiterate that writing constitutes an existential act and an imaginative exploration of ideas. Moreover, it represents a moral responsibility. Literature should not be regarded as a subordinate form of social criticism. When authors face censorship, imprisonment, death threats, or even death itself due to their writings, it is not merely due to the ambiguity of their discourse. To genuinely acknowledge the significance of authors and their fates, we must recognize that fiction surpasses the realm of word games and embrace it as a mode of radical discovery. 

We need an environment that acknowledges writing's inherent creativity, artistry, and, on a broader scale, acknowledges creativity as a primary force in shaping intelligence, emotions, and morality. This perspective was initially championed by Jean-Paul Sartre and his freedom-affirming existentialism, sparking a postwar debate that ultimately paved the way for deconstructionism. Sartre's motivation stemmed from witnessing the defamation, destruction of books, and erasure of writers during the 1930s, perpetrated by external forces that lay beyond the realm of criticism—forces embedded in history.