Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide

Deconstruction is often misunderstood. However, it is a useful tool as a critical theory in its own right and when incorporated into other critical theories because it “reveals the hidden work of ideology” (214).

Deconstructing Language

A key domain of analysis for deconstruction is language. Theorist Jacques Derrida argued that language is not a straightforward method of communication. Rather, language is “a fluid, ambiguous domain of complex experience” that transmits and naturalizes ideology (214). Since we all use language every day, we have largely internalized it and therefore overlook its peculiarities and ambiguities. For example, emphasis and tone can vastly change the meaning of a sentence, e.g., “He says she is busy” implies that the subject (“he”) might be lying, whereas “He says she is busy” is a more neutral statement of fact.

Like constructionists, deconstructionists are interested in the formula sign = signifier (sound, image, gesture) + signified (concept to which the signifier refers), but they find it insufficient. Deconstructionists analyze the ambiguity resulting from linguistic polysemy (multiple, overlapping, or unclear meanings) not captured by the formula. Tyson uses the example phrase “This tree is big.” While its meaning seems clear, deconstructionists might ask, “Big compared to what?” or “Is she surprised by its size?” or “Why ‘this’ tree and not another one?” This implies, for deconstructionists, that signs are made of not one signifier and one signified but many possible signifieds.