Deconstructionism and literature
- Dashboard
- Deconstructionism and literature
Most Recent Score Report
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Previous Score Reports
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Deconstructionism and literature
Array
(
[passage] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 559756
[post_author] => 12815
[post_date] => 2025-01-02 10:25:35
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-01-02 15:25:35
[post_content] => Practice Passage (Question 1-4)
*This passage is the property of Khan Academy and has been reformatted into an AAMC-style interface in their entirety by MedLife Mastery. MedLife Mastery does not endorse and is not an affiliate of Khan Academy.
Deconstructionism, as applied to literary criticism, is a paradox about a paradox: It assumes that all discourse, even all historical narrative, is essentially disguised self-revelatory messages. Being subjective, the text has no fixed meaning, so when we read, we are prone to misread. Deconstructionism emerged from Paris and, notwithstanding its claim to universality, has an evident history. It is a manifestation of existential anxieties about presence and absence, reality and appearance. It developed via structuralism, with its emphasis on semantics and symbolism.
From these sources it derived its fundamental premise: the endless slippage of the subject, the futility of any attempt to name reality. The premise suggests the disillusion attendant on the collapse of the two major forces in twentieth-century European thought: enlightened humanism and idealistic Marxism. Despite its origins, deconstructionism found its own best home in the United States, that historically dissociated construction of random meanings. (“America is deconstruction,” said its leading proponent, Jacques Derrida.)
By the 1970s, deconstruction filled—perhaps better, emptied—the gap left in the humanities in the U.S. by the demise of the old “new criticism.” But what began as brilliant and creative analytic performances soon became classroom pedagogy. Throughout the decade, the seminar rooms on U.S. campuses—and then campuses worldwide—became workshops in deconstructionist practice. Junior misreaders worked away, becoming ever more like C.I.A. operatives, decoding false signals sent by a distant enemy, the writer.
Deconstruction exalted itself with ever higher pretensions. As one academic critic exulted, “The history of literature is part of the history of criticism.” Deconstruction transformed everything into social commentary, easily making affinities with sexual and racial politics, two other militant philosophies that challenge the sanctity of text. It presented itself as a supra-ideological mode of analysis, exposing the ideological aberrations of others while seemingly possessing none itself.
Any resistance that deconstructionists encountered was usually interpreted as censorious ignorance. As their approach prevailed, gangs of neodeconstructionists descended on the library with their critical services. One would demythologize, another decanonize, another dephallicize, another dehegemonize, another defame. Literature, as the deconstructionists frequently proved, had been written by entirely the wrong people for entirely the wrong reasons. Soon all that would be left of it would be a few bare bones of undecidable discourse and some tattered leather bindings. This frenzy would be called a conference of the Modern Language Association.
The point that needs to be reaffirmed is that writing is an existential act, an imaginative exploration of ideas. It is, in fact, an expression of moral responsibility. Literature is not a subordinate category of social criticism. When writers are censored, imprisoned, killed, or threatened with death for their writings, it is not because their discourse is undecidable. If we are to take authors and their fate seriously, we must recognize that fiction is more than an opportunity for word games; we must honor it as a mode of radical discovery.
We need an ambiance around writing that affirms its nature as creativity, as art, and that in a larger sense considers creativity a prime power in the making of intelligence, feeling, and morality. This was the position from which Jean-Paul Sartre with his freedom-affirming existentialism started the postwar debate of which deconstruction is a latter-day development. He started it because during the 1930s the word had been defamed and disfigured, the book burned, the writer erased, by forces that lay outside criticism, in history.
Adapted from M. Bradbury, The scholar who misread history. ©1991 by New York Times.
[post_title] => Deconstructionism and literature
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => deconstructionism-and-literature
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-01-02 10:25:35
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-01-02 15:25:35
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://medlifemastery.com/?post_type=passage&p=559756
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => passage
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[questions] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 578908434
[question] => Which of the following statements best expresses the passage author’s message?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 4
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question, which means that it wants you to understand the central theme or idea of the passage.
The author describes deconstructionism as a movement rooted in “anxieties about reality and appearance” (paragraph 1), that adopts that view that “the text has no fixed meaning” (paragraph 1), and posits “the futility of any attempt to name reality” (paragraph 2). The author describes the rise of deconstructionism in order to set the stage to push back against this viewpoint. In direct opposition to the view that all text is “undecidable discourse”, he argues “When writers are censored, imprisoned, killed, or threatened with death for their writings, it is not because their discourse is undecidable” (option A). The author describes the popularity of deconstructionism especially in the 1970s, but does not explicitly state that most literary criticism today falls into this category (option B). The author highlights some tensions between existentialism and deconstructivism, but doesn’t talk about competition among critics (option C). In contrast to the deconstructionist view, the author believes that “the point that needs to be reaffirmed is that writing is an existential act, an imaginative exploration of ideas” (paragraph 6). The author believes that writing is an art and that fiction should be honored.., therefore this suggests the most salient issue for literary criticism should be the consideration of creative merit (option D).
Thus, option D is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. The true meaning of texts can never be decided.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. Most literary criticism is now deconstructionism.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Deconstructionist and existentialist critics compete.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. The most salient issue for literary critics should be creative merit.
)
)
)
[1] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3873426850
[question] => The passage implies that the declaration “America is deconstruction” (paragraph 2) means that:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question, which means that it wants you to be able to figure out what specific words or phrases mean within that context.
The passage describes the United States as a home for deconstruction because it was known for “historically dissociated construction of random meanings.” (paragraph 2) This phrasing suggests that America and deconstructionism have in common a lack of consistency in interpretation (option A). The passage does not discuss where the literature that was analyzed by deconstructionists had been written, and does not imply that U.S. literature was particularly suited to the approach (option B). The passage states that deconstruction emerged from Paris, and that the analytic methods were first introduced as part of instruction in the US. It does not assert that the U.S. critics played any role in developing the methods that were applied (option C). The passage suggests that deconstructivism shares “affinities with sexual and racial politics” but does not assert that US higher education is controlled by any of these agendas (option D).
Thus, option A is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. the constant revisions typical of U.S. culture capture the spirit of deconstructionism.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. literature produced in the U.S. is especially suited to analysis by deconstruction.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. U.S. literary critics developed the scholarly methods adopted by deconstructionism.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. U.S. higher education is controlled by the political agenda of deconstructionism.
)
)
)
[2] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 83407773
[question] => According to the views of the passage author, a responsible review of a stage production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar would probably:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 3
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Beyond the Text” question, which means that it wants you to either apply or extrapolate the ideas in the passage to new situations or to assess how new information would impact the ideas presented in the passage. It is important to understand the assumptions underlying the article, and how new information may or may not shift the central thesis.
The author believes that writing is an “imaginative exploration of ideas” (paragraph 6) and that “we need an ambiance around writing that affirms its nature as creativity, as art” (paragraph 7). The author would endorse a review that assumes that Shakespeare’s presentation of events reflected his artistic sensibilities (option C). The author does not recommend that a review should recommend the play as an accurate representation of Roman history (option D), since it’s actually a creative product of Shakespeare’s imagination. Similarly, the author would be unlikely to argue that Shakespeare unintentionally distorted historical events due to limited knowledge (option B). Rather, if the primary purpose of literature is creative expression, than any historical distortions are irrelevant to the primary purpose of literature. According to the author, a responsible review of the play should not focus on evidence that it promoted Shakespeare’s gender or class which would be interpreting the play as a vehicle for social commentary. In contrast to the deconstructivist view, which he asserts has “transformed everything into social commentary” paragraph 4, the author believes that “Literature is not a subordinate category of social criticism” (paragraph 6). This excludes option A.
Thus, option C is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. point out evidence that the play promoted the interests of Shakespeare’s gender and class.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. argue that Shakespeare distorted history unintentionally because of his limited knowledge.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. assume that Shakespeare’s presentation of events reflected his artistic sensibility.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. recommend the play as an entertaining introduction to Roman history.
)
)
)
[3] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 4240073053
[question] => What is the author’s primary purpose in discussing deconstructionism in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question, which means that it wants you to be able to figure out the purpose of specific terms or ideas within the context of the passage. The question asks you to integrate separate passage components into a more generalized and complex interpretation of passage meaning, and to determine the significance of and relationships among different parts of a passage.
The author offers a narrative of increasing deconstructionist zeal, that attacked literature until “all that would be left of it would be a few bare bones of undecidable discourse and some tattered leather bindings” (paragraph 5). The extremism of deconstructionism is then contrasted with the author’s belief that “writing is an existential act, an imaginative exploration of ideas” (paragraph 6). This juxtaposition of descriptions was done to help denounce deconstructionism and strengthen a contrasting vision. The author does not portray deconstructionism as having existentialist principles (option B). in fact he contrasts deconstructionism and existentialism in the final paragraph when he states “We need an ambiance around writing that affirms its nature as creativity, as art,… This was the position from which Jean-Paul Sartre with his freedom-affirming existentialism started the postwar debate…” There is no discussion of an evaluative approach or any acknowledgement that deconstructionism could be equally interesting as such an approach (option D). The main point of the passage is to criticize the value of deconstructionism. The author does not simply believe that the deconstructionism movement was not courteous enough to writers (option C). Although he argues that deconstructionists both defamed authors and claimed that literature had been written by entirely the wrong people for entirely the wrong reasons (paragraph 5), his main point is not that reviewers should be more courteous, but rather that deconstructionism lacks a fundamental appreciation of the nature and value of writing as an art form.
Thus, option A is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. To denounce its triviality in order to strengthen the case for a contrasting vision
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. To acknowledge its existentialist principles in order to propose an extension of these principles
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. To reveal its lack of sympathy for writers as an argument for a more courteous manner by critics
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. To contrast its analytic method with an evaluative approach that may prove equally interesting
)
)
)
)
[total_question] => 4
[correct_answers] => Array
(
[559756|1] => D
[559756|2] => A
[559756|3] => C
[559756|4] => A
)
[hide_display_feedback_settings] =>
[hide_solutions] =>
)