Deconstruction is a very interesting literary theory. While structuralism is focused on the underlying messages and themes of a piece, deconstruction, or post-structuralism, brings us back to the matter of the work itself. In deconstruction, the name seems to serve the theory itself. There is often a claim that there is no wrong assumption about a piece of literature as long as it can be backed up. Deconstruction is interested in the notion that the work is going to deconstruct itself once a claim is made. In literature, we often look at binaries in terms of deconstruction. While a text may be looking at the binary of rich and poor and strongly condemn the rich class, deconstruction would want to take the very same piece of literature and show that it also still works in favor of the rich class. Essentially, the point is to focus on the way language contradicts itself within writing. For example, while there are plenty of examples within literature of men and women sleeping with copious amounts of the opposite sex, each gender receives a specific term for that very act. A female would be deemed a “slut” while a male would be deemed a “stud,” a word with a much more positive connotation for the very same act. Although the act is the same, language has a different term for it. Overall, Deconstruction looks at pieces of literature to show that they have already proved themselves wrong based on the language used already.

Jacques Derrida was a very strong advocate for language change. He considered language to be fluid and ambiguous. In terms of signifiers, Derrida stated that they didn’t really have meaning besides to make meaning for other signifies. When you hear tree, you think of leaves and branches and sticks, which are simply signifiers that lead to other things. Overall, Derrida states that language makes meaning based off of itself. Additionally, some words do not have meaning without other words. Does dark mean anything besides the absent of light? Does female mean something with the world male?