“Criticism, is the overall term for studies concerned with defining, clasifying, analysing, interpreting, and evaluating works of literature.”1 What I’m going to analyze in this work is not criticism, but “theoretical criticism”. Theoretical criticism proposes a theory of literature, in the sense of general principles, together with a set of terms, distinctions and categories , to be applied to identifying and analyzing works of literature, as well as the “criteria”2 by which these works and their writers are to be evaluated. Since the 1970s there has been a flood of writings, Continental, American and English, proposing diverse nove l and radical forms of critical theory. Why do we need criticism? In order to understand texts or to give them the “right interpretation”3. But can one speak about a right interpretation? In order to find a plausible answer to this question, I will focus on two of the most important modern literary theories, namely New Criticism, defined as “an achieved unity of meanings”4 and Deconstruction as “a galaxy of signifiers”5, comparing the two ones by means of the consulted essays on New Criticism and Deconstruction.
But before comparing the two theories, I will first introduce you into the meaning and features of both theories, presenting you some of the most important critics and their essays and critical theories referring to New Criticism and Deconstruction. I will dedicate the last two units of my paper to an ample comparison between New Criticism and Deconstruction, showing you, that there are both similarities and differences to find in the two theories, and that in spite of all the differences, the former survives in the last one. Moreover, I will point some personal conclusions concerning my own point of view to the topics mentioned above.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. New Criticism
2.1. Definition and features
2.2. T. S. Eliot
2.3. R. P. Blackmur
2.4. Cleanth Brooks
3. Deconstruction
3.1. General views
3.2. Jacques Derrida and Ferdinand de Saussure
3.3. Hillis Miller
3.4. Paul de Man
4. “An Achieved Unity of Meanings” vs. “A Galaxy of Signifiers”- Comparing New Criticism to Deconstruction
5. Conclusion – Personal Notes
6. Consulted works
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines and compares two pivotal 20th-century literary theories: New Criticism and Deconstruction. The primary goal is to investigate how both approaches treat the literary text as an autonomous object while diverging significantly in their understanding of meaning—viewing it either as an "achieved unity" or as an endless "galaxy of signifiers."
- Theoretical definitions and evolution of New Criticism and Deconstruction.
- Analysis of key figures such as T.S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, Jacques Derrida, and Paul de Man.
- Examination of the "close reading" methodology within both critical frameworks.
- Comparative synthesis of how these theories handle textual interpretation, ambiguity, and paradox.
Excerpt from the Book
3.4. Paul de Man
Paul de Man, the last influential critic, I’m going do deal with in this paper, applied deconstruction to the reading of literary texts, being interested in the operation of rhetorical figures, and his essays often focus on a single trope -metaphor, prosopopoeia, apostrophe, or metonymy- as a means of opening up a text to its "allegory of reading"36, by which de Man means the text's reflexive awareness of itself as a system of rhetorical figures. Allegory, de Man argues, belongs to a "rhe toric of temporality"37 in which signs repeat other signs and in that repetition signify their difference. Reading is an act that critics perform vis-à-vis texts but also something that texts perform on themselves in those moments when they declare and at the same time dispute their status as language.
De Man's method of textual analysis resembles Derrida's in its recurrent effort to uncover hierarchical oppositions within texts and to reveal the linguistic and philosophical grounds upon which those hierarchies are built. Such a method, called a "critique," seeks to make explicit what is implicit, assumed, repressed, or contradicted in a text. Thus de Man is less concerned to explicate theme than to show how rhetoric is "thematized," that is, how the literal or narrative level of a text may repeat its figural substructure. Stylistically, however, de Man is far from Derrida: puns, multilingual resonances, and other rhetorical flourishes do not play a significant role in de Man's prose, which by contrast is sedate and analytical.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical emergence of modern literary theories and defines the scope of theoretical criticism.
2. New Criticism: Discusses the foundational principles of New Criticism, emphasizing textual autonomy and the "organic unity" of meanings.
3. Deconstruction: Explores the radical approach of Deconstruction, focusing on language as an unstable system of signs and "differance."
4. “An Achieved Unity of Meanings” vs. “A Galaxy of Signifiers”- Comparing New Criticism to Deconstruction: Provides a comparative analysis of both theories, highlighting similarities in method while contrasting their ultimate goals.
5. Conclusion – Personal Notes: Reflects on the possibility of a "right" interpretation and advocates for the appreciation of textual plurality.
6. Consulted works: Lists the academic sources used to support the theoretical arguments presented in the paper.
Keywords
New Criticism, Deconstruction, Literary Theory, Close Reading, Organic Unity, Signifiers, Jacques Derrida, Cleanth Brooks, Paul de Man, Textual Analysis, Rhetoric, Logocentrism, Differance, Interpretation, Plurality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on comparing two major literary theories: New Criticism and Deconstruction, analyzing their core methodologies and approaches to textual interpretation.
Which specific theories are being compared?
The study compares New Criticism, characterized by the pursuit of an "achieved unity of meanings," with Deconstruction, described as a "galaxy of signifiers."
What is the core research question?
The research explores whether a "right interpretation" of a literary text is possible and how these two theories provide different answers to this question.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative analytical approach, examining key essays and theoretical frameworks from major proponents of both schools of thought.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
It covers the definitions, key features, and major critics of both movements, followed by a direct comparison of their similarities and contradictions.
How is the New Critical approach defined in the text?
New Criticism is presented as a movement that treats a poem as an independent, self-sufficient verbal object, focusing on formal unity, irony, and paradox.
How does Deconstruction perceive language differently?
Deconstruction argues that language is an arbitrary and unstable system where meanings are deferred and textual stability is subverted by internal contradictions.
What is the significance of the "aporia" in Paul de Man’s theory?
The aporia represents a moment of textual doubt or impasse where opposing systems of logic or rhetoric collide, revealing that a text may say the opposite of what it initially appears to mean.
- Quote paper
- Cornelia Kaltenbacher (Author), 2003, "Achieved Unity of Meanings" vs. "A Galaxy of Signifiers", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/21921
