First, let me apologize for the deconstructive treatment of "The Spur." Until Engl. 4800, I have never even heard of this literary theory, and like many of the students in this chapter, I can see how this lens is very difficult to peer through. With no assumed meaning, there seems to be a lack of a foundation for which things can progress. We as humans must find meaning in somethings, especially our language, to garner a sense of accomplishment. For these reasons, and considering how difficult it was for me to "deconstruct" this small poem (I realize that the size, or lack thereof, of the poem may have created some additional difficulties), I am not sure I would even go as far as mentioning this literary theory in my classroom. If it is confusing to me, won't it be even more confusing and demeaning to students?
Beyond a very loose, rough analysis of a poem, let me try and sort out what it is that I actually know about deconstruction. First, it seems very difficult to define. There are obviously many interpretations of what deconstruction looks like in regards to literary theory. As Barnet (1996) states, "deconstructionists 'interrogate a text and they reveal what the authors were unaware of or though they had kept safely out of sight'" (p. 101). Further, it seems that these binary oppositions come into play, no interpretation of a word or a phrase is safe, and contradictions in authors' words are regularly sought out. Other than this, I am clueless as to what deconstruction looks like...
Although presently I don't see any use for this theory, Appleman claims that "it teaches them to examine the very structure of the systems that oppress them..." (p. 106). This may be the only possible benefit I see. But if the goal of literary instruction is to examine a situation from another perspective, I feel like many other literary theories complete this task very well. Appleman also mentioned that the students gained a general sense of what deconstruction was, but that they hated it. Well, then, why teach something they hate? I don't understand why if the text should have no meaning, then why are we studying literature in the first place. Considering 1) that so many theorists are opposed to it and 2) so many students react negatively to it, it seems like the entire thing may hinder instruction. As one student put it, I too think this theory is quite cynical...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I know we have talked about this outside of class too, but this chapter really rubbed me the wrong way. i think this is true because I know nothing about deconstruction, and don't really see the point in it. Also, the fact that Appleman gives multiple definitions, but not one specific one frustrates me. I think it is good for students, but as a teacher i feel like i should know the ins and outs of something i am trying to teach, and if i am not comfortable with it, i don't think i want to bring it into my classroom.
Post a Comment