Deconstruction, theory and practice

New Accents

by Christopher Norris

Theory and Practice has been acclaimed as by far the most readable, concise and authoritative guide to this topic. Without oversimplifying or glossing over the challenges, Norris makes deconstruction more accessible to the reader. The volume focuses on the works of Jacques Derrida which caused this seismic shift in critical thought, as well as the work of North American critics Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman, J. Hillis Miller and Harold Bloom.In this third, revised edition, Norris builds on his 1991 Afterword with an entirely new Postscript, reflecting upon recent critical debate. The Postscript includes an extensive list of recommended reading, complementing what was already one of the most useful bibliographies available.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Literary Criticism, Nonfiction, Language, Linguistics, Art

157 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

As of 2007 he is Distinguished Research Professor in Philosophy at Cardiff University. He completed his PhD in English at University College London in 1975, while Sir Frank Kermode served as the Lord Northcliffe Professor of modern English literature there.

Until 1991 Norris taught in the Cardiff English Department. He has also held fellowships and visiting appointments at a number of institutions, including the University of California, Berkeley, the City University of New York and Dartmouth College.

He is one of the world's leading scholars on deconstruction, particularly in the work of Jacques Derrida. He has written numerous books and papers on literary theory and continental philosophy. Norris is now considered a philosopher in his own right: 2003's Life After Theory reference required featured an interview with Norris, placing him alongside Derrida as a significant contemporary.

Reviews

[Laura Walin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A concise introduction to a very complex topic. After reading this book once I think I have a vague idea what Derrida was after, but to be sure, I certainly need to read this one more time. Due to conciseness, the author assumes quite a lot of history to be known to the reader, so the first time was going back and forth with the book and Wikipedia. Second time, with better concentration, I may be able to grasp more.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A. Introduction
1. What is deconstruction? It is neither a harmless academic game nor a terrorist weapon. Beneath all traditional literary criticism there has been an agreement about certain conventions or rules of debate without which it would be impossible to discuss literature. The central convention was that literature possessed meaning and that literary criticism sought to understand that meaning. Deconstruction challenges the distinction between literature and criticism. Criticism becomes an act of writing or ecriture.
B. Roots: structuralism and New Criticism
1. Deconstruction is post-structuralist in its refusal to accept the idea that there is a stable structure with an objective meaning in every text.
2. Kant: He set out to redeem philosophy from the radical skepticism of Hume who argued that it was impossible to arrive at definite knowledge about the outside world. He argued that knowledge was the product of the human mind, and that the mind could only interpret the world and not know its reality. Thus, Kant was not interested in the real, but the human understanding of the real.
3. Saussure: He and the structuralists borrowed from Kant since he too sought to divorce mind from reality. Saussure argued that our knowledge of the world is shaped by the language we use to interpret it. This relativity of meaning is the starting point for all structuralist thought.
4. New Critics: This is what the New Critics intended to do with poetry. Criticism was separate from poetry. Criticism could not come to understand the objective meaning of the poem with scientific language. Instead, it is only through paradox, irony, etc, that a poem could be understood.
C. Derrida: language against itself
1. Derrida refuses to rate philosophy the privileged status as the dispenser of reason. He argues that philosophers impose their thoughts by ignoring the disruptive effects of language (such as metaphor, irony, paradox). Thus, philosophers believe that they can convey their thoughts without the language distorting the meaning. Derrida argues that this is wrong and argues that a kind of literary criticism is necessary for any type of discourse. Literature is no longer at a depriviliged position to philosophy.
2. Differance: (for Derrida this term means to differ and to defer--as in defer a meaning). If there is one theme that runs through all structuralist thought it is the principle first articulated by Saussure that language is a differential network of meaning. Structuralism took Saussure’s synchronic idea. Not only language, but all cultural activity, could be studied from a synchronic viewpoint (the related level s of signifying activity at a given time).
3. Derrida’s attack on Rousseau (who argues writing is a supplement of speech). Rousseau believed that speech was the most natural form of language. Derrida argues that writing is more natural. Derrida shows that Rousseau contradicts himself at various points in his text and thus confirms the priority of writing.
4. Derrida’s attack on Levi-Strauss. Levi-Strauss was the first to use structural linguistics to understand other languages or signifying systems. He believed that there are certain regularities (recurrent myths) that occur in all cultures. Derrida reads Levi-Strauss as an heir to Saussure. Levi-Strauss links writing with civilization and argues that this ‘fall’ occurs when the primitive speech is overcome. For Levi-Strauss writing is a means of colonization or oppression and a resulting violence.
5. Thus, Derrida is intent upon freeing structuralism from Saussure’s phonocentric approach.
D. Nietzsche: philosophy and deconstruction
1. While some of Nietzsche’s thought has been associated with the rise of the Nazi’s (such as the concept of the superman), his critique of Western philosophy was influential for deconstruction. Nietzsche was important because of his style of philosophic writing which was skeptical of all forms of truth, including his own. Philosophy, he argued, chose dominate metaphors to place its faith in truth. Different philosophies simple privileged different metaphors.
2. Deconstruction then exposes different systems of thought to its privileged terms, inverts them, and shows them to be false.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best early studies of deconstruction (first published in 1982), Norris displays an engaging, clear, memorable writing style which nicely and succinctly covers Derrida, Nietzsche, the Yale School and others… regarding the Nietzschean critique of Socratic reason, Norris remarks:

"Nietzsche’s response is not to deny the potential aberrations of rhetoric but to argue, on the contrary, that Socrates himself is a wily rhetorician who scores his points by sheer tactical cunning. Behind all the big guns of reason and morality is a fundamental will to persuade which craftily disguises its workings by imputing them always to the adversary camp. Truth is simply the honorific title assumed by an argument which has got the upper hand – and kept it – in this war of competing persuasions."

And this in regard to the genealogy of the Socratic method:

"Reason, or the supposed self-evidence of reason, is thrown into doubt by its manifest failure to justify its methods on other than purely tautological grounds."

Now in its third edition, I would highly recommend 'Deconstruction' for anyone wanting a comprehensible look at this vital school of criticism…

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book, like other introductions to deconstruction, comments on the work of thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Paul De Man, it differs from the others in a number of instances. For example, it includes a discussion of Robert M. Pirsig’s popular work Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, which Norris rightly sees as a deconstructive approach to traditional philosophical values.

Acquired 1994
The Word, Montreal, Quebec

[sologdin · Rating 2 out of 5]

an effective introductory presentation. perhaps 'totalizes' a bit too much by attempting to generalize concepts applicable to the grammatology or to essays in margins or dissemination across the entirety of a spectrum known as 'deconstruction.' that's not in itself a bad thing, as it's cool to bring some order to these texts, which, when read as a group, appear to be a chaotic jumble of local interventions without much universal purchase--what, after all, is the value of a linguistics reading of rousseau's confession if there's no general principle to be had, as the confession is not really a linguistic text, and is kinda sucky in and of itself?

[Sam Eccleston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastically clear and balanced introduction to the often-perplexing thought of Derrida and his disciples. Norris manages to simultaneously do justice to the power of deconstructive criticism and not exaggerate its scope or import or ignore its vulnerabilities and necessary reflexivity. One of the chief strengths of Norris' approach is that he situates Derrida (et al) firmly within the history of literary criticism before discussing the implications of his work for other disciplines. This allows for a much clearer discussion of the context and motivation for Derrida's approach, as well as to flesh out what can sometimes seem to be the minimally defined conceptual building blocks thereof. Another is that he eschews throughout his work the pretentious and attention seeking verbosity (not to mention the mock profundity and over employment of paradox and contradiction) of your garden variety Derridean. Fantastic work.

[Jaani Ramaki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fav. Qoute

Derrida’s scepticism is not what some of his interpreters would make of it, a passport to limitless interpretative games of their own happy devising. This applies even to the latest texts in translation where the ideas of free play and intertextuality are pushed to a provocative extreme. The point is that Derrida, unlike some of his disciples, has arrived at this position through a long and strenuous process of deconstruction. It may seem quaintly moralistic to say that he has ‘earned’ this right by actually thinking through the problems his followers have picked up, as it were, ready-made. Yet this was already Derrida’s contention in Of Grammatology: that thought can break with its delusive presuppositions only by constantly and actively rehearsing that break. Otherwise deconstruction remains an ineffectual gesture, a theory confined by the very oppositions it seeks to overthrow.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

He clearly has no understanding of Marxism whatsoever (maybe he only read Eagleton and Foucault as references, those are the ones he quotes anyway), and I get the feeling that he sometimes puts words into some philosophers' mouthes that they wouldn't approve of. But generally it's a well written introduction that helped me connect some dots. Again, this theory doesn't have any "practise" apart from (literary) critic, so that part of the book is dire.

[Daniel]

Turns out that Deconstruction is basically the "stop hitting yourself" of literary criticism. Taking the text's own language, metaphors, and figures of speech and showing how they don't mean what the writer likely intended for them to mean. I can imagine Derrida deconstructing this very review. Taking apart my analogy of "stop hitting yourself" and showing how it personifies the text, how it's nothing more than rhetoric.

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a pretty reasonable introduction to Deconstruction, which is essentially a way of understanding the relationship between a text and it's meaning. Derrida takes inspiration from a wide array of disciplines and can be very dense, so this introduction can be helpful. This is more of a overview of what is Deconstruction and it's academic history, rather than a overview of Derrida himself. I would prefer to rate this three and a half stars, but it's worth your time if you're interested.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

very few people should read this as it is couched in poetic history of 100-60 years ago and is mostly argumentation about the role and methods of critics. Still legible if you really want to read it, but nearly impenetrable to people not well versed in said history. The arguments themselves are well wrought, often crossing from critical methodology to philosophy and ultimately may help the reader to decide what they want to be critical of in their own life. 3.5

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Semantic Software Design by Hewitt refers deconstruction as its principles So I wonder what deconstruction is. This is a challenging book for lexicons it used. At least I get the general relationships between Friedrich Nietzsche, previous philosophy schools, Marxism, & Derrida. It decreases my attachment to & certainty about the dominant tradition from Socrates.

[Matt Nyman · Rating 5 out of 5]

You have to know what you are doing, but this is one of the best primers on a bunch of deep thinkers I have read for readability. Every sentence matters, and pay attention, but if you do this is totally readable and accessible. Covers a lot of territory, without a ton of inside philosopher pool.

[Chip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear. Although the parts about Marx and Nietzsche are not good enough.

[Bella Briška · Rating 4 out of 5]

I never know how to rate academic literature. It's good, I guess. Couldn't write my thesis without it.

[Mr. Mahardika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sayangnya dalam bahasa Indonesia tidak diterjemahkan 2 bab terakhir dari buku ini. Padahal buku ini merupakan bahan yang cukup bagus untuk mempelajari Dekonstruksi.

[Alan Wilkes]

After this book, and an introduction in a rhetoric course I took last year, I feel ready to start reading Derrida's work. Nolan does a good job of introducing the basic ideas of a theoretician that many describe as obscure at best an unintelligible at worst. Nolan's introduction is worth the time and is a much quicker read than anything I have read by Derrida himself. Derrida's work is worth your attention because all the cool kids are reading him and you want to be one of the cool kids...right?

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great primer on deconstruction. Writing style is amazingly clear and concise. The first two chapters read almost as intriguingly as a mystery novel. I couldn't put it down! Things get a little muddled by the end. A discussion of Marx and Nietzsche that was hard to follow and very brief overviews of the convoluted American deconstructionists makes the ending pretty difficult to get through. But a good read overall, especially if you want a quick introduction to deconstruction that is scholarly and not distracting like those popular "graphic" introductions.

[A.N. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A helpful book as an introduction to deconstruction, although far from being efficient. The second and third postscripts reveal the reason why the book requires substantial revision and re-writing, especially in chapters related to Nietzsche and Marx. Though this defect can be overlooked in light of the fact that Norris is a pioneer in such thorough yet simplified introduction on the subject, it no longer fails to decrease its value among many better books written thenceforth. A good option to begin with, yet by no means sufficiently accurate.

[Ben Kearvell · Rating 3 out of 5]

If there's one thing I've learned from this book it's that, if you want to understand Derrida and Co., you can't rely on a single primer. Not that this a bad book. It shows that deconstruction can be deployed in a variety of ways, and that there can be no single account of a deconstructed text. That's pretty much the point of deconstruction.

[Katie Edmonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

well written with a great reference section.
easy to read. easy to follow. nice treatment of a complex and hard to pin down subject.

[Sally · Rating 3 out of 5]

Normally I can get a bit of pleasure out of Deconstruction theory. Not with this book.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm reading this for the second time in preparation for grad school. It's clearly written and easy to follow, which can't always be said of texts about literary criticism.

[Stefani Leung · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise essential reading on the powerful literary movement of deconstruction