Deconstructionism vs. New Historical Criticism
What's the Difference?
Deconstructionism and New Historical Criticism are both literary theories that seek to analyze and interpret texts in a way that goes beyond traditional literary criticism. Deconstructionism, pioneered by Jacques Derrida, focuses on the idea that language is inherently unstable and that meaning is always deferred. It seeks to uncover the contradictions and complexities within a text by examining the ways in which language shapes our understanding of it. New Historical Criticism, on the other hand, looks at texts in their historical and cultural context, seeking to understand how they reflect the social and political conditions of the time in which they were written. While Deconstructionism emphasizes the ambiguity and instability of language, New Historical Criticism focuses on the historical and cultural influences that shape a text's meaning.
Comparison
| Attribute | Deconstructionism | New Historical Criticism |
|---|---|---|
| Key Figures | Jacques Derrida | Stephen Greenblatt |
| Focus | Textual ambiguity and instability | Historical context and cultural influences |
| Methodology | Deconstruction of binary oppositions | Interdisciplinary approach |
| Goal | Reveal hidden meanings and contradictions | Understand literature in its historical context |
Further Detail
Introduction
Deconstructionism and New Historical Criticism are two prominent literary theories that have had a significant impact on the field of literary criticism. While they both aim to analyze and interpret texts, they do so in different ways. In this article, we will explore the key attributes of Deconstructionism and New Historical Criticism and compare their approaches to literary analysis.
Deconstructionism
Deconstructionism, a theory developed by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s, challenges traditional notions of language, meaning, and truth. According to Deconstructionism, language is inherently unstable and cannot accurately represent reality. Derrida argued that language is full of contradictions and ambiguities, making it impossible to arrive at a fixed interpretation of a text. Deconstructionists believe that meaning is always deferred and can never be fully grasped.
- Language is unstable and full of contradictions
- Meaning is deferred and cannot be fixed
- Challenges traditional notions of truth
New Historical Criticism
New Historical Criticism, on the other hand, emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limitations of formalist and structuralist approaches to literary analysis. This theory emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding a text. New Historical Critics believe that a text is shaped by the social, political, and cultural forces of the time in which it was written. They argue that a text can only be fully understood by considering the historical circumstances that influenced its creation.
- Emphasizes historical context
- Text is shaped by social, political, and cultural forces
- Understanding requires consideration of historical circumstances
Comparison
While Deconstructionism and New Historical Criticism have different starting points and methodologies, they share some similarities in their approach to literary analysis. Both theories challenge traditional interpretations of texts and seek to uncover hidden meanings and contradictions. Deconstructionism questions the stability of language, while New Historical Criticism emphasizes the importance of historical context, but both theories ultimately aim to reveal the complexities and ambiguities of texts.
- Both challenge traditional interpretations
- Seek to uncover hidden meanings and contradictions
- Reveal complexities and ambiguities of texts
Conclusion
In conclusion, Deconstructionism and New Historical Criticism offer unique perspectives on literary analysis that have influenced the field of literary criticism in significant ways. While Deconstructionism focuses on the instability of language and the impossibility of fixed meaning, New Historical Criticism emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding texts. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, but they have contributed to a richer and more nuanced understanding of literature.
Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.