On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism

"Academic literary crticism continues to be dominated by 'theory' and the struggle between deconstructionist and humanist approaches to the business of reading. Jonathan Culler's On Deconstruction is a typically patient, thoughtful, illuminating exposition of the ideas of Jacques Derrida and their application to literary studies."--David Lodge, Commonweal

"Culler is lucid and thorough, can move into and out of other people's arguments without losing the sense of his own voice and argument, and can manage to seem equally at home with Freudianism, feminism, and traditional literary criticism."--Times Literary Supplement

"As a practicing critic Culler has always been a deconstructor, and he approaches this topic with special immediacy and force. In On Deconstruction he offers generous summaries of numerous representative articles and a fine annotated bibliography. . . . His magisterial way of tracing particular topics and techniques through our diaspora of critical texts, and his provocative analyses, cannot fail to focus any critic's thinking about deconstruction."--Modern Language Quarterly

"Gifted with grace and clarity, Culler provides us with a stimulating survey of contemporary literary criticism."--Antioch Review

With an emphasis on readers and reading, Jonathan Culler considered deconstruction in terms of the questions raised by psychoanalytic, feminist, and reader-response criticism. On Deconstruction is both an authoritative synthesis of Derrida's thought and an analysis of the often-problematic relation between his philosophical writings and the work of literary critics. Culler's book is an indispensable guide for anyone interested in understanding modern critical thought. This edition marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first publication of this landmark work and includes a new preface by the author that surveys deconstruction's history since the 1980s and assesses its place within cultural theory today.

The list of solid works on Derrida is much larger than a previous reviewer suggests. As for reading Heidegger for ten years constituting a perfect world, as another reviewer suggests, I think we can all agree that that really wouldn't be a perfect world at all. What's more, this argument seems to say that it's fine - really, it's OK - not to read philosophy because Heidegger (and Derrida) are really too complex to get anyway. Well, if that's the case, how does Culler *really* make understanding Derrida any easier when he strikes the same pose and omits philosophy? It's a hopeless argument. If you really think ten years of Heidegger is necessary to understand Derrida, then the situation really is futile and impossible (and you've probably misunderstood something about Derrida's work). But it's still OK to read Culler all the same, because Culler avoids all that philosophy stuff. In the meantime, however, he's also avoided explaining Derrida.

So what's all the fuss about? The reality is that if Derrida's work helps you in your own thinking, then great. If not, then why are you reading him? Move on to something else that works for you. Derrida is not the be-all and end-all of anything. If Derrida interests you, and you want to understand his arguments better, then it really just comes down to one thing: Culler doesn't present Derrida's work or thought in any capable way. And other books do.


Still excellent   November 24, 2003
 8 out of 9 found this review helpful

Responding to an earlier review:

"Has anyone else noticed that Culler's recent book (2003) on deconstruction simply recycles what he says in this book from 1983? Culler hasn't learned a whit more about deconstruction in the past 20 years. Yes, he's better than Christopher Norris on deconstruction, but then again so is my auto mechanic (I'm not kidding). Read Culler if you want to know what Culler thought deconstruction was 20 years ago."

People have already responded to this but it bears repeating. The book you're discussing was written in 1983. Hence, it seems (eerily) similar to Culler's work from 1983.

"As for reading Heidegger for ten years constituting a perfect world, as another reviewer suggests, I think we can all agree that that really wouldn't be a perfect world at all. What's more, this argument seems to say that it's fine - really, it's OK - not to read philosophy because Heidegger (and Derrida) are really too complex to get anyway."

This isn't what the previous reviewer was suggesting. The point was that if you want the best possible understanding of Derrida, you're going to need to read extensively within the philosophical tradition. No secondary text on Derrida--not Gasche's, Culler's, Bennington's, Norris', Harvey's, Beardsworth's, etc.--will change that. Nonetheless, people have limited amounts of time--they can't read everything (though they can certainly try). If you want to read something on Derrida that doesn't assume a vast knowledge of the tradition, Culler's book is an excellent choice.

"If you really think ten years of Heidegger is necessary to understand Derrida, then the situation really is futile and impossible (and you've probably misunderstood something about Derrida's work)."

First, it's not an all or nothing proposition. If you know Heidegger (and Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche, etc.) well, you'll be better able to grasp Derrida. Second, why does the idea that you might have to study something for ten years make it "futile and impossible?"

For someone who's clearly spent so much time reading Derrida, you seem to be a terrible reader.

The bottom line is that Culler's book has remained for twenty years one of the clearest and most intelligent guides to Derrida available.