Appleman, Chapter 6 - Deconstruction

I almost didn't assign this chapter. I was thinking that, of all the literary theories we could discuss in this class, as secondary teachers you would least likely use deconstruction. This may have been due to personal biases I've had against this theory. Like Barnet, I have felt the “irritating arrogance in some deconstructive criticism” (103). I've at times found it difficult to see what it has to offer the high school classroom. I like to think of theory as a way for students to garner more meaning from text. To me deconstruction meant showing how all text is meaningless.

This chapter has changed my mind somewhat. I see now that deconstruction can be about making meaning, although the meaning will be contradictory to other meanings depending on the reader's focus. This is not reader response, however. According to Appleman, it is the sophistication of the reader that will determine the meaning gathered. It is this point that still bothers me about deconstruction: the idea that there are levels of sophistication to reading. I don't want to be in a position to tell one of my students that her reading is naïve because she is buying what the author is selling and another of my students that her reading is sophisticated because she is a resistant reader (102). I have a hard enough time getting students interested in literature without making them feel stupid because they don't “get it.”

I am excited about the prospect of deconstruction teaching students to break out of their binary mode of thinking. I wish I could teach this to some adults I know as well. The whole “you're either with us or you're against” mindset is not only narrow-minded, it is destructive as well. It is an overly masculine way of thinking that does not allow for the nuances of our lives that make up reality. Politicians are punished by their opponents when they see both sides of the issue – or worse yet, that there may be a third choice. Our media finds it easier to boil down all issues to two sides. Is it any wonder that adolescents pick up on this way of thinking? If deconstruction offers a way out of this trap, then I am all for it.

Finally, I was intrigued by the story at the end of the chapter of the students who went through a meltdown after learning about deconstruction. Evidently, this theory does more than dismantle the text on page – it dismantles the text of our lives as well. Rachel, one of “the beautiful people,” according to Appleman, had her whole life figured out. She was satisfied with her comfortable life thus far and was looking forward to more comfort at the University of Michigan. There were no clouds in her sky. I am impressed that learning deconstruction allowed her to see through her life's own illusions. While I feel for her because of this sudden sense of disembodiment she must have felt, I argue that this was probably one of the most important moments of her life. It is good to be forced into a position of questioning your own life. This incident happened almost ten years ago now. I would be interested to meet this Rachel and see if her life is truly different because of this terrifying moment of realization. Appleman offers this incident as a word of warning, but I take it as evidence that deconstruction is a useful theory to be employed in the secondary classroom.