The Promise and Practice of Deconstruction

By Neal, Aubrey | Canadian Journal of History, April 1995 | Go to article overview

The Promise and Practice of Deconstruction

Neal, Aubrey, Canadian Journal of History

The current debate over deconstruction continues to burn and it does not appear that the argument will be put to rest any time soon. David Lehman (1991) speaks for a number of pundits like Ellis (1989), and Crews (1986), who regard deconstruction as the academic boondoggle of the century.(1) Lehman quips, 'If you want to make it in the criticism racket, you have to be a deconstructionist or a Marxist or a feminist"(2) and quotes Frederick Crews:

The sense that everything has been done turns to panic as opportunities

for appointment and promotion disappear. Such a climate is

ideally suited to nurturing a mania for theories(3).

In more erudite language, Christopher Norris (1989) accuses Lyotard (1984) of reducing knowledge to the, "purely performative terms ... of discursive interventions whose only claim to "truth" is their pragmatic yield in securing this or that short-term benefit."(4) From these perspectives, deconstruction is a postmodernist text technology for bourgeois radarpersons of the postindustrial fin de siecle.

Critics like the minority of 204 Regents of Cambridge University who voted against awarding an honourary doctorate to Jacques Derrida in May, 1992 fear that, 'the major preoccupation and effect of his voluminous work has been to deny and to dissolve those standards of evidence and argument on which all academic disciplines are based." E.D. Hirsch (1976) denounced decadent literary scholarship"(6) two years before Derrida's major work began appearing in English. Hirsch has been supported by his younger colleague, Michael Fischer (1985).(7) Elliot (1992), Himmelfarb (1984 and 1989), and Wakefield (1990) take similar positions.(8) The emotionalism, jargon, and the negative attitude Ormiston (1991) calls the "knell of the age of the professor"(9) -- all this and more understandably put off a whole cohort of fair-minded readers.

Errors of enthusiasm and errors of understandable suspicion have degraded the debate from both sides, but there is only one major error which I wish to address in this essay. Both pro and con tend to mistake deconstruction for a scholarly method. It is not. Deconstruction is a criticism of traditional scholarly method; not a substitute for it. In this essay, I want to look at the history of the origins of the debate in order to show the methodological problem in the social sciences which deconstructionists believe they have perceived. In the course of outlining the intellectual context in which deconstruction arose, I want to blaze an historiographical trail through the literature that will be useful to anyone who is interested in the history of the debate.

The conservative opponents of deconstruction are not only journalists like Lehman and suspicious traditionalists like Crews, Ellis, and Himmelfarb. An interdisciplinary tribunal of critical leftists like Eagleton (1983), Felperin (1985 and 1989), Jameson (1991), Lentricchia (1983), Norris (1988, 1989, 1990), Palmer (1990), Samuel (1991 and 1992) and Woodiwiss (1990) also challenge deconstruction on the grounds that it undermines many of the basic methodological tenets of the arts and humanities disciplines.(10) Palmer and Eagleton take the approach that "when structuralism gave way to poststructuralism, the way was thus unconsciously prepared for the reification of discourse."(11) Fredric Jameson agrees. "'Culture' has become a product in its own right ... Postmodernism is the consumption of sheer commodification as a process."(12) For these critics, deconstruction means a loss of critical contact with the real historical world of politics, status rivalry, economics, and class conflict.

Samuel (1991) concedes that deconstruction "has given a new lease of life to the study of 'rulership' allowing ... some of history's newest concerns -- body-language, homophobia, sexual politics, charisma and magic ... to take center stage";(13) but "the semiotic appetite for protocols and codes . …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

The Promise and Practice of Deconstruction


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

    New feature

    It is estimated that 1 in 10 people have dyslexia, and in an effort to make Questia easier to use for those people, we have added a new choice of font to the Reader. That font is called OpenDyslexic, and has been designed to help with some of the symptoms of dyslexia. For more information on this font, please visit

    To use OpenDyslexic, choose it from the Typeface list in Font settings.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search


    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.