Advertisement

The Figure of Catachresis and the Plot of Unreadability in Deconstruction

Chapter
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

In the polarised scenario of contemporary criticism, deconstruction has willingly played the role of the arch antagonist and dismantler of traditional scholarship, assaulting the notion of a fixed and determinable meaning, and the authority of any particular system of reading fueled, according to Jacques Derrida, by the ‘powerful, systematic, and irrepresible desire for such a signified’.1 Certain deconstructionist pronouncements, especially when lifted out of their qualifying contexts, have contributed to the misconception that poststructuralist theory is adverse to disciplined, ‘thoughtful’ reading, blocking the process of interpretation even before it had a chance to articulate anything: ‘Modern hermeneutics … is actually a negative hermeneutics. On its older function of saving the text, of tying it once again to the life of the mind, is superimposed the new one of doubting, by a parodistic or playful movement, master theories that claim to have overcome the past, the dead, the false. There is no Divine or Dialectic Science which can help us purify history absolutely, to pass in our lifetime a last judgment on it’.2

Keywords

Reading Strategy Critical Interpretation Critical Rewrite Figural Language Polarise Scenario 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geoffrey Hartman, ‘Literary Criticism and Its Discontents’, Critical Inquiry, 3 (1976): 211–2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geoffrey Hartman, ‘Understanding Criticism’, in Writing and Reading Differently: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Composition and Literature, ed. C. Douglas Atkins and Michael L. Johnson (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1985), pp. 159–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christopher Norris, Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology (London and New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1988), p. 89.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    De Man, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, second ed. rev. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983; 1st ed. 1971), p. 111.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 33.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Barbara Johnson, A World of Difference (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), p. 13.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Paul de Man, ‘Shelley Disfigured,’ in Deconstruction and Criticism, ed. Harold Bloom et al. (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), p. 53.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    John D. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic Project (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    See the first section, ‘Tympan’, of Derrida’s Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); also Derrida’s analysis of the ‘fold’, ‘hymen’, ‘membrane’, ‘sheet’ in Mallarmé’s Mimique, (Dissemination, pp. 173–287).Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    For a good discussion of Derrida’s exploitation and critique of boundaries, see Jonathan Culler, ‘At the Boundaries: Barthes and Derrida’, in At the Boundaries: Proceedings of the Northeastern University Center for Literary Studies, vol. 1 (1983): 23 45.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    J. Hillis Miller, ‘The Figure in the Carpet’, Poetics Today, 3 (1980): 107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 17.
    See Derrida, ‘The Parergon’, October, 9 (1979): 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    Robert L. Caserio, Plot, Story, and the Novel: From Dickens and Poe to the Modern Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 225.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    C. Douglas Atkins, Reading Deconstruction: Deconstructing Reading (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1983), p. 69.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Miller, ‘Narrative and History’, ELH, 41 (1974): 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 21.
    Miller, Fiction and Repetition: Seven English Novels (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 68.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Miller, ‘Ariadnés Thread: Repetition and the Narrative Line’, Critical Inquiry 3 (1976): 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 22.
    Rpt. in Interpretation of Narrative, ed. Mario J. Valdés and Owen J. Miller (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979/1981), pp. 148–66.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Miller, Thomas Hardy: Distance and Desire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. viii.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    Miller, ‘Deconstructing the Deconstructers’, Diacritics, 5/2 (Summer 1975): 31.Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    J. Hillis Miller, The Form of Victorian Fiction (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1968), p. 16.Google Scholar
  23. 30.
    Shlomith Rimmon, The Concept of Ambiguity — the Example of James (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1977). See my own discussion of Rimmon’s analysis in chapter 6.Google Scholar
  24. 31.
    Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, ‘Deconstructive Reflections on Deconstruction: In Reply to Hillis Miller’, Poetics Today, 211b (1980/81): 187.Google Scholar
  25. 32.
    Miller, ‘Williams’ Spring and All and the Progress of Poetry’, Daedalus, 99 (1970): 429.Google Scholar
  26. 33.
    Miller, ‘The Function of Rhetorical Study at the Present Time’, ADE Bulletin, 62 (September-November 1979): 12.Google Scholar
  27. 35.
    Paul de Man, Foreword to Carol Jacobs, The Dissimulating Harmony (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. xi.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    Paul de Man, The Rhetoric of Romanticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 80.Google Scholar
  29. 41.
    Neil Hertz similarly notes de Man’s ‘particular way of combining analysis and pathos, of blending technical arguments about operations of rhetoric ... with language — his own and that of the texts he cites — whose recurrent figures are strongly marked and whose themes are emotively charged, not to say, melodramatic’. See ‘Lurid Figures’, in Reading de Man Reading, ed. Wlad Godzich and Lindsay Waters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1988), pp. 82–104.Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    Jonathan Culler, ‘Reading Lyric’, Yale French Studies, 69 (1985): 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 46.
    Geoffrey Hartman, ‘Tea and Totality: the Demand of Theory on Critical Style’, in After Strange Texts: The Role of Theory in the Study of Literature, ed. Gregory S. Jay and David L. Miller (University: University of Alabama Press, 1985), p. 30.Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    J. Hillis Miller, ‘Composition and Decomposition: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Writing’, in Composition & Literature: Bridging the Gap, ed. Winifred Bryan Homer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), p. 48.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    John K. Sheriff, The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism and Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 32, 44.Google Scholar
  34. 53.
    Gasché, ‘Unscrambling Positions: On Gerald Graff’s Critique of Deconstruction’, MLN, 5 (1981): 1015–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 55.
    Miller, ‘A Guest in the House: Reply to Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan’s Reply’, Poetics Today, 2/1b (1980/81): 190.Google Scholar
  36. 56.
    John R. Boly, ‘Deconstruction as a General System: Tropes, Disciplines, Politics’, Cultural Critique, 11 (Winter 1988–89): 188–9.Google Scholar
  37. 58.
    Christopher Butler, Interpretation, Deconstruction, and Ideology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 71.Google Scholar
  38. 62.
    Vincent B. Leitch, Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), p. 224.Google Scholar
  39. 66.
    See especially the collection of essays edited by C. Douglas Atkins and Michael Johnson, Writing and Reading Differently: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Composition and Literature (Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 1985), with contributions from Vincent B. Leitch, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Gregory L. Ulmer, David Kaufer and Gary Waller, Sharon Crowley, J. Hillis Miller, Nancy R. Comley, Barbara Johnson, Geoffrey Hartman.Google Scholar
  40. 67.
    Gregory L. Ulmer, ‘Textshop for Post(e)pedagogy’, in Writing and Reading Differently, p. 56. For a similar argument, see Vincent B. Leitch, ‘Deconstruction and Pedagogy’, in Theory in the Classroom, ed. Cary Nelson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), p. 53.Google Scholar
  41. 73.
    Miller, ‘Stevens’ Rock and Criticism as Cure, II’, Georgia Review, 30 (1976): 332.Google Scholar
  42. 75.
    See Cedric Watts, ‘Bottom’s Children: the Fallacies of Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Deconstructionist Literary Theory’, in Lawrence Lerner, Reconstructing Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), pp. 20–35.Google Scholar
  43. 76.
    James Gribble, Literary Education: a Reevaluation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 79, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 80.
    Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 148.Google Scholar
  45. 81.
    William E. Cain, ‘English in America Reconsidered: Theory, Criticism, Marxism, and Social Change’, in Criticism in the University, ed. Gerald Graff and Reginald Gibbons (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1985), p. 91.Google Scholar
  46. 82.
    Allan Megill, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 260.Google Scholar
  47. 83.
    Derrida, ‘The Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’, in The Structuralist Controversy: the Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), p. 404.Google Scholar
  48. 85.
    John Carlos Rowe, ‘Surplus Economies: Deconstruction, Ideology, and the Humanities’, in The Aims of Representation: Subject/Text/History, ed. Murray Krieger (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p. 134.Google Scholar
  49. 87.
    Derrida, ‘The Conflict of Faculties: a Mochlos’, trans. Cynthia Chase, Jonathan Culler, Irving Wohlfarth (New York: Columbia University lecture, 1980). Quoted in Vincent B. Leitch, ‘Deconstruction and Pedagogy’, p. 47.Google Scholar
  50. 91.
    Michael Ryan, Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1982), p. xv.Google Scholar
  51. 93.
    Barbara Johnson, The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), pp. x-xi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marcel Cornis-Pop 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUK

Personalised recommendations