Deconstruction is a philosophy applied to literary criticism, as well as to criticism of the other arts, which began to gain popularity in the 1980s. The field of deconstruction arose partially in reaction to the literary theories of structuralism. Structuralism posited that when words could be understood within the context of a society of readers, then one could point to the specific meaning of a text.

Deconstruction eschewed the concept of one possible meaning for a text, and instead suggested that meanings of a text are multiple and contradictory. Underlying a text is the subtext, a set of values that must be evaluated to see if the text is really contrary in nature and hence somewhat without meaning. Deconstruction also evaluates the way in which texts in the traditional literary canon are taught to students, suggesting that traditional “readings” of a text often ignore underlying value structures in direct opposition to what is taught.

A simple example of this is analysis of the work Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. For many years, this novel was thought to be an important work on human rights and an examination of man’s inhumanity to man. Through the eyes of Huck, the reader could see the devastation of slavery and the degradation suffered by African Americans.

Critics who use deconstruction quite logically point to the last portion of the book, in which Huck and Tom realize that Jim is a free man and no longer a slave, yet go to great lengths to pretend he is a slave. They lock him up and nearly starve him. Huck is quite willing to degrade Jim in this way, showing few moral qualms about doing so.

For those practicing deconstruction, this bizarre chapter suggests that the so-called work about human rights is anything but. The underlying values in the text are not consistent with the way it is presented to students. In a sense, the deconstructionist has taken apart the novel and its critical tradition, displaying its inconsistencies.

Many literary critics abhor deconstruction, stating that deconstructing a text deprives the text of meaning and ultimately dismisses the value of anything it touches. To those who use deconstruction, the answer to this criticism might be: “How does one define value? What is meaning?” Though this answer may frustrate critics of deconstruction, it points to the way in which deconstructionists see the text as a source of multiple meanings, determined very much by each reader's own subtexts and definitions. To reduce and reduce the meaning of a work may ultimately make it purposeless, say some critics. At its best, though, deconstruction can be helpful in unmasking huge contradictions present in a text.

Critics of deconstruction have also accused the theory of being fascist in nature. This is largely due to one major proponent, Paul de Man, who may have written for a magazine that had some Nazi sympathies. Paul de Man has refuted these charges, yet deconstruction seems inexorably tied to fascism in the minds of many.

It is true that reading a deconstruction of a text can be similar to attempting to decode a secret message. Deconstructionists like Jack Derrida deliberately choose confusing and lengthy words to derive a multiplicity of meanings from their interpretation. In some ways, this makes deconstruction elitist and inaccessible to many readers. The deconstructionist cares not, however, for those who are confused. They believe that confusion should be the result of reading a deconstruction of a text.

A more accessible deconstructionist is Roland Barthes, who tragically died in his early 40s. His writing on deconstruction is somewhat more straightforward, and anyone studying literary criticism would do well to read his work before forming an opinion of deconstruction’s theoretical importance.