A Study On Deconstructive Criticism Of "Yale School"

Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Geoffrey H. Hartman and Harold Bloom areusually called “Yale school” collectively. During the70s and80s of the20thcentury,they shared similar theoretical traits and academic interests at Yale University, andinfluenced the academia tremendously. Their theoretical basis and critical practicewere both interconnected and personally tagged. It is helpful to accept the name of“Yale school”, in the precondition of respecting each critic’s critical personality.Hopefully, by this way, horizon can be widened, puzzle can be solved, and insightcan be attained.“Yale school” has multiple genes.“New criticism” stays as the nativebackground; and deconstruction of Derrida serves as a major theoretical source.However, it should be clarified that “Yale school” and Derrida are not totallyidentical, though they are closely related. Rather, they are mutually inspired andaccomplished.From the deconstructive viewpoint, the boundary between genres is vague, andthe distinction between criticism and literature is therefore unstable. Even theconcept of literature turns suspicious after careful examination. Literature has noessence. The genre of literature is not a solid matter or thing-in-itself. Nevertheless,deconstructive critics never disclaim the existence of literature. Nihilism can not beused to describe their views of literature. They view literature as being aboutnothingness rather than being nothingness itself; or view a literary work as a fictiveworld that lures the readers into addiction, by the power of literary performative; orview the literary fabrication as the greatest fun that loneliness can bring to life, bywhich a reader can meet novelty and finally meet his/her “otherness”.Of course, the definition of literature and the partition of genres are still impossible. Deconstructive critics never try to set the boundary for literature or forany genre. They would rather like to confuse “literature”,“philosophy” and“criticism”. They usually regard criticism as equally creative as literature, and not asaffiliated to literature. However, the suggestion of a literature-like criticism does notmean that the criticism and the literature are one thing. Although their distinction isvague, they are never identical. Deconstructive critics emphasize the creativity ofcriticism in order to rectify the prejudice against criticism as an inferior vassal ofliterature. The purpose, however, is not regicide. Rather, deconstruction proposestreating criticism as literature, and vise versa. This can lead to mutual inspiration,and bring new enlightenment to literary study.Different from traditional theory of rhetoric, deconstructive criticism regardsrhetoric as a must of language, rather than its decoration. The indispensable rhetoricdoes not assist in better expressing; on the contrary, it is disruptive against grammarand logic, making a dilemma between opposing senses, from which the readers cannot choose at all. Such disruptive feature of rhetoric is not unfamiliar to literature;yet, as for other discourses aiming at recognition, rhetoric is a fatal destruction ofsignification.Deconstructive narratology also rises from the perspective of rhetoric, thoughthis deconstructive rhetoric is rather different from the traditional rhetoric, and theso-called deconstructive narratology also differs from structuralist narratology in agreat deal. The typical structuralist narratology tries to seek a general mode or somelimited number of such modes that can suit all narrations. On the contrary,deconstructive criticism favors peculiarity of each text, rather than universal rules.Thus, deconstructive narratology is actually a sort of “anti-narratology”.Deconstructive critics attach great importance to reading. Their researches aremainly based on highly close reading of the texts under study. Meanwhile, theirelaboration on the reading itself is also inspiring. The possibility of reading is oftentaken for granted. Actually, the impossibility of reading is innate in all texts. This isnot only a question of ambiguity. The literal and figural meanings contradict to eachother without any hope toward reconciliation, and thus erase the possibility of reading and understanding. This innate uncertainty causes a feeling of skepticismwhich, however, does not weaken the discourse of interpretation. The enthusiasm ofreading and interpretation is instead reinforced. Such is also the reason why criticismis always needed.If reading is a game that can not lead to any doubtless meaning, there will be no“correct” reading. In this sense, deconstructive critics claim that all readings aremisreadings, and all understandings are misunderstandings. However, facing thedestined misreading, they never lament or panic. Such destined misreading isdetermined by the nature of text, and can not be attributed to the inability of thereaders or the tricks of the writers. Furthermore, from the deconstructive perspective,“correct” and “mistaken” are a pair of binary opposition that is unstable. They areinterchangeable rather than fixed. Misreading is a kind of blindness that can lead toinsight. Criticism is, therefore, active in spite of the destined misreading, alwayspresenting new insight within blindness, and pushing academics forward.The consciously or unconsciously abuse of former works, is of course one typeof misreading, as in the “poetics of misreading”. Belated poets resent being belittledby the halo of the precursors. As belated poets, they live in the shadows with anxietyof being influenced. In order to fight for the imaginative space and earn their ownpoetic uniqueness, the strong belated poets have to debase, distort and misread theirgreat precursors. On this base, even a whole literary history of misreading can befounded.Due to the anti-traditional posture and methodology, deconstructive criticismoften attracts academic attacks. The attacks are mainly from Humanism and Leftism.The former believes that deconstructive criticism erases human factors together withhumanistic value in literary study, and thus is virtually a sort of nihilism; while thelatter believes that deconstructive criticism can only bring bravado, seeminglyradical but lacking in the possibility of action to actually change the world.The debate between J. Hillis Miller and the humanists was prominent andinspiring, with distinctive positions and solid argumentation. This debate involvedthe issue of pluralism, the view of meaning, and “the critic as host”. Being criticized by the humanists was not surprising; however,“Yale school” holding rather radicalliterary theory and critical practice, also encountered reproaches from the leftistcritics. Gerald Graff, Terry Eagleton and Richard Rorty criticized deconstructionrespectively, from their own standpoints, concerning the ethics, politics andtheoretical tendency of deconstructive criticism. Although the attacks were generatedfrom discrepancy of standpoints, there were some misconceptions. Facing thereproaches from both sides, deconstructive critics responded properly.