Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to poststructuralism: postmodernism


deconstruction, in linguistics, philosophy, and literary theory, the exposure and undermining of the metaphysical assumptions involved in systematic attempts to ground knowledge, especially in academic disciplines such as structuralism and semiotics. The term “deconstruction” was coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. In general, deconstruction is a philosophy of meaning, which deals with the ways that meaning is constructed by writers, texts, and readers.

Extending the philosophical excursions of Nietzsche and Heidegger, Derrida criticized the entire tradition of Western philosophy's search to discover the essential structure of knowledge and reality, ultimately confronting the limits of human thought. As an extension of his theory of logocentrism, Derrida posited that all texts are based on hierarchical dualisms (e.g., being/nonbeing, reality/appearance, male/female), where the first element is regarded as stronger and thus essentially true and that all systems of thought have an assumed center, or Archimedean point, upon which they are based. In a deconstructionist reading, this unconscious and unarticulated point is revealed, and in this revelation the binary structure upon which the text rests is imploded. Thus what appears stable and logical is revealed to be illogical and paradoxical, and interpretation is by its very nature misinterpretation.

To a deconstructionist, meaning includes what is left out of the text or ignored or silenced by it. Because deconstruction is an attack on the very existence of theories and conceptual systems, its exposition by Derrida and others purposely resists logical definitions and explanations, opting instead for alinear presentations based on extensive wordplay and puns. Deconstructionists tend to concentrate on close readings of particular texts, focusing on how these texts refer to other texts. Certain scholars have severely criticized this movement on this basic point.

Nevertheless, deconstruction, especially as articulated in Derrida's writings and as promoted by Paul de Man and others, has had a profound effect on many fields of knowledge in American universities, particularly during the 1970s and 80s. In addition to philosophy and literary theory, the techniques and ideas of deconstruction have been employed by scholars in history, sociology, educational theory, linguistics, art, and architecture. While the theory has lost much of its intellectual currency, the general acceptance and popularity of interdisciplinary scholarship in the 1980s and 90s are regarded by many as an outgrowth of deconstruction.


See J. Culler, On Deconstruction (1982); R. Gasche, The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection (1986); P. Kamuf, A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds (1991).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia™ Copyright © 2022, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.


a widely influential intellectual movement in France from the 1960s onwards, deriving from STRUCTURALISM but reinterpreting the latter's main assumptions about LANGUAGE and society as signifying systems. As such, poststructuralists utilized while also challenging the ascendancy of key structuralist theorists including SAUSSURE and LÉVI-STRAUSS. In the course of a root-and-branch questioning of traditional modes of philosophical and linguistic theorizing, they also challenged other major social theories, notably MARXISM. The major theorists most usually associated with poststructuralism are DERRIDA and FOUCAULT (see also LACAN). Central aspects of previous linguistic theory ‘deconstructured’ by poststructuralism, especially by Derrida, include:
  1. a questioning of the implications of linguistic conceptions of DIFFERENCE, seen especially in Derrida's challenge to what he regards as SAUSSURE's still ‘metaphysical’ presuppositions about the SUBJECT and LANGUAGE, the priority given to speech‘ over ‘writing’ – see DECONSTRUCTION;
  2. a view that writing, too (see TEXTS), is also questionable as a source of any ‘grounding’ for objectivity or culture, the major reason for this being that, in addition to the ‘arbitrary’ connection between SIGNIFIER AND SIGNIFIED (as for Saussure), the relation between signifiers (via ‘differences’) is equally suspect, given that signifiers are always 'slipping under other signifiers‘, with no final definition possible.
Collins Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed. © HarperCollins Publishers 2000
References in periodicals archive ?
275) The problems with current formulations of poststructuralism become visible when one studies the empirical errors that have been committed in its name.
The Lacanian chapters conclude highlighting the "points of connections" between poststructuralism, Derrida and Lacan (151-2).
The process was also motivated by the attempt to come to terms with 'poststructuralism' in the very different works of Jean-Francois Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida and the coterie of French feminist structuralists like Luce Irrigaray, Helene Cixious and others.
His poststructuralism driven more by Thom's and Mandlebrot's 'postmodern science' also provided the grounds for the critique of the knowledge/information economies at least in its neoliberal forms in terms of 'perfomativity' which was essential a second generation systems analysis based on an understanding of the spatialization of knowledge.
Thus, while Riley argues that poststructuralism owed much to a Durkheimian legacy, he posits a complex and contingent process of reconfiguration and transformation rather than simple continuity.
Despite its subject, Robert Young's Signs of Race in Poststructuralism: Toward a Transformative Theory of Race is hardly such a book: its breadth, depth and intended reach are bracing and invigorating.
This article extends these ideas by showing how feminist poststructuralism and queer theory are useful for understanding children's identity construction and transforming practice.
While there are moments in the book when the authors seem to speak too broadly about "poststructuralism" and "postcolonialism," they do not hesitate to engage with the work of some of the most influential and well-known feminist theorists of these perspectives, including Judith Butler, Gayatri Spivak, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty.
Although he admires poststructuralism and postanarchism, Newman is surprisingly critical of posthumanism, arguing that 'these developments should not be fetishised or seen as a form of liberation, as those harbingers of the "post-human" cyber age are wont to do' (43).
Moreover, the influence of Emmanuel Levinas on our understanding of these terms, particularly in the context of what some see as the ethical turn of poststructuralism in the 1980s, has been largely taken for granted.
Chapters 8 ('The Feminism Challenge') and 9 ('Postmodernism and Poststructuralism') are the two longest in the book.
Or a most radical hermeneutics--in the root sense which might still sound like an aporetic impossibility: that of a deepening of poststructuralism?