Deconstruction theory is a powerful tool of meaning and structure that seeks to show how meaning is relational to society and expresses predetermined binaries where one is held as superior but is dependent on the inferior. Deconstruction’s power can be used both socially and politically, making it a tool used often in Feminism. Feminists who use deconstruction theory seek to expose the origins of patriarchal power and how it is constructed on the attempt to control and manipulate women into an inferior status. However, there is no clear argument or opinion where Feminists agree on the value of deconstruction when advancing women’s interests. So, how can deconstruction theory contribute to feminism?
There is no clear argument during the first wave of feminism as deconstruction theory had not been officially established. All we know is that (for the time period) they took radical actions to get noticed. However, during the second wave, when deconstruction theory came to prominence, many feminists sought to use deconstruction to challenge the traditional literary viewpoint of the dominating white male. They wanted to use psychological experiences of literature to challenge the classic gender stereotypes and the male-oriented views of the world.
While this has been helpful and has advanced women’s rights, I argue that deconstruction theory has the potential to advance more in the third wave of feminism than it previously has by combining psychological perceptions and literary experience with physical public and social actions. This theory seeks to combine the efforts of the first and second waves of feminism and has the potential to make the biggest impact when trying to critique the hierarchical and masculinist societal structures that dominate through exclusion and oppression.
To understand the controversial questions being presented about these topics, we must first look in detail at the definition of deconstruction theory and the specifics of the three waves of feminism.
Deconstruction theory is a theory created and presented by Jacques Derrida. This literary critique looks at different binaries and the place they have with each other and in our society. A binary is a set of two opposites: light and dark, black and white, man and woman. This theory also strives to expose how all meaning is relational, meaning that the value of a concept we have is all psychological, that we hold one of the binaries, such as man, as superior, while the other, woman, becomes inferior. Deconstruction looks at a piece of literature and challenges the author’s intentions, using their own writing to show how the “superior” term really has a dependence on their opposite term; it focuses on undermining hierarchical assumptions. For example, a feminist could use deconstruction to say that men are held as superior over women, but men wouldn’t exist without a woman. This theory is encompassing and compatible with multiple situations. Even in political and social contexts, such as feminism, deconstruction exposes how any given “power system” seeks to establish or maintain their power by excluding or oppressing others.
Feminism is a wide-spread movement that covers both political and social inequalities present in gender; particularly the oppression and injustices shown towards women, and has been present since the 1800’s. Over the course of time, as goals have been achieved and new goals have arisen, different eras of feminism developed, known as the three waves of feminism. These waves are defined by the problems they seek to address.
The first wave of feminism was from the 1840’s to the 1960’s. This wave of feminism is the traditional start of feminism that we learned so much about in history class. It focused more on the political and economic aspects of our country and was spearheaded by the suffrage movement (the right to vote). This particular wave was started officially by the Seneca Falls Convention and was led mainly by the names that we are generally familiar with: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B Anthony, Julia Howe, etc. However, during this particular wave, they were angry that African American men got the right to vote before them, and they were therefore exclusive of African American women. In addition, because of the time period, they were also extremely exclusive towards queer people.
Next, from the 1950’s to the 1980’s, after the 19th amendment had been added to the constitution, the second wave of feminism became apparent. This wave of feminism focused more on the workplace, sexuality, family, and reproductive rights. They challenged traditional societal roles and the masculinist ways of thinking that defined these roles. “This wave is sometimes considered to be a “radical” period of feminism, for feminists advocated to overthrow the patriarchy. According to them, equal rights could not be achieved as long as a patriarchal system was in place. It was thus not enough to fight for equality within the existing structures: those structures were meant to be deconstructed” (Wpowereurope). The second wave of feminism accomplished much, such as Roe v Wade, granting the right to privacy and protecting reproductive rights such as abortion.
From these accomplishments, a new wave of feminism was again born, spanning from the 1980’s to the present. This wave of feminism is the most debated and complicated. When it originated, this wave focused on a lot of the same things as the second wave of feminism, choosing to turn their attention to the social aspects of injustices towards women. However, many women in this wave recognized that feminism had not been fair to women of color or queer women, and therefore also represented the oppressions they faced. They endeavor to challenge inequitable social institutions and the discriminatory behaviors connected to them. This is one of the most inclusive and extensive waves of feminism, for they took on many broad topics and avoided taboos.
According to Carol Neeley, “Feminist critique…has arisen in opposition to the dominant discourse’s construction of woman and gender relations, [and] has been shaped by that discourse’s positive and negative definitions of women and woman’s place.…feminist critique has been capable of reconstituting itself, of fighting new kinds of oppression with new weapons” (5). This means that Neeley is recognizing the fight that women have gone through and the adaptations they have made as they transitioned between the three waves. In addition, she recognizes the different ‘weapons’ that feminists have used, including deconstruction theory. These two topics, deconstruction theory and feminism, have always been historically connected. Because deconstruction looks at these binaries imbedded into society, it has long been discussed and argued the value of deconstruction’s connection to feminism. Many groups have used this theory to deconstruct society’s viewpoint of a woman’s place, especially in written literary works. Society has always held man with a superiority over woman, and feminists are fighting to change that and become equal. This is why deconstruction theory has been thought of as useful; it recognizes these societal ‘rules’ and deconstructs the reasons behind why they are so ingrained into a majority of the population. Although deconstruction theory has been thought of as valuable for this purpose, this opinion has changed over time. But to what extent? In each wave of feminism, what is the value of deconstruction theory and how does it relate to the feminist narrative now?
As feminism has adapted over time, the use of deconstruction theory has been varied. In the first wave of feminism, deconstruction as a theory had not yet been established. This means that those brave women had to rely on bold actions to get people’s attention. An example of this is the famous Seneca Falls Convention, where the leaders of this revolutionary movement met for the first time and drafted a document known as the Declaration of Sentiments, where they not only described the unfair treatment of women, but demanded legal and cultural reform through 12 “resolutions.” Another example took place on November 5, 1872. “Susan B Anthony and fourteen female colleagues entered a busy polling station in Rochester, New York, and cast their ballots in the presidential election. Shortly after, Anthony was arrested, placed on trial, and found guilty of illegally voting – as a woman” (Williams, 22). These two actions are just two examples of the physical steps these women were willing to take to further the goals of feminism.
The second wave of feminism had a different approach. Deconstruction theory had been developed at this time, meaning feminists had Derrida’s specific ideology to use to their advantage. Bernard Duyfhuizen writes that “recent literary studies demonstrate how well deconstructive and feminist theories join to produce powerful and unsettling readings of canonical works and to uncover significant texts by women that have been excluded from the traditional canon of literary studies. Moreover, both seek to displace for the purposes of critical inquiry restrictive conventions and ideas that implicitly or explicitly exclude concepts threatening conventional logocentric truths and anthropocentric epistemologies” (159). This quote shows that in second wave feminism, deconstruction theory was highly valued and seen as a helpful tool. Duyfhuizen is arguing that second wave feminism so highly valued deconstruction theory because it reveals the antifeminism and oppression towards women shown through literary works; it reveals the truths and epistemologies about how our world thinks about feminists and women in general. This shows that in second wave feminism, deconstruction theory was a highly valued tool for psychologically interpreting male dominated traditional views and challenging the patriarchal system that pushes down women into a classic inferior status.
This opinion can be exemplified through Lydia Namatende-Sakwa’s study on deconstruction theory on literary works through a feminist lens. This study was completed in 2018 and literally deconstructs children’s books through a feminist looking glass, asking why there are still these harsh binaries between gender and the placement of man above woman. One of the children’s stories that this study focuses on is The Paper Bag Princess, where a dragon separates Prince Ronald from Princess Elizabeth, and she goes to rescue him in a paper bag since that is all she has left. But when she finally does, he says that because all she has is a paper bag, he can’t marry her. So, Princess Elizabeth, the paper bag princess, realizes that she is worth more than that and runs off into the sunset to be happy. However, “instead of seeing her as a hero, some boys were fascinated by her naked and bereft state, while other children expressed criticism when she ‘loses’ the prince for her ‘lack’ of virtue, asserting that she should have cleaned herself up and then married the prince. The binary oppositional maleness and femaleness ingrained in the narrative structures they are familiar with precluded a feminist liberatory interpretation of the text. [Therefore, it is affirmed that] ‘The story is heard as if it were a variation of a known story line in which males are heroes and females are other to those heroes. Elizabeth thus becomes…a princess who just got things a bit wrong’” (Namatende-Sakwa, 73). This shows these binary oppositions and the automatic societal prejudices that are introduced into even children, and are still prevalent in today’s world. This, in turn, shows the drastic effects that antifeminism has had, therefore solidifying the argument presented in the second wave of feminism: that deconstruction theory is a beneficial tool to the feminist movement and is vital in psychologically tearing down a system that is built against women.
However, from these arguments, there is something missing. I believe that each scholar who has studied deconstruction theory and both its uses and power in feminism has overlooked one critical thing. The power of the other side’s argument. Deconstruction is a complicated theory, and it is near impossible to use it to its full potential while only considering one option. Every argument presented in feminism lacks the consideration of what is possible. Instead, they tend to lean radically towards one side or the other. Even in the most current period, many people tend to lean one way or the other, stubbornly holding on to their beliefs without stopping to consider the possibilities that each option and each theory has to offer feminism. Recognizing other peoples’ arguments and putting them into play in your own opinion is vital to understanding the true value Deconstruction theory can have, especially in the present wave of feminism. By considering all aspects of what this theory is capable of, we can expand the mindset and continue to achieve great things. To do this, we must ask ourselves how we can truly accept the help this theory offers. How can we piece together different arguments to achieve the real capability of deconstruction theory?
This question can at least be partially answered when we come to third wave feminism. One article that summarizes the ideals of this wave states that “neither pragmatists nor deconstructionists can do more for feminism than help rebut attempts to ground these practices on something deeper than a contingent historical fact – the fact that the people with the slightly larger muscles have been bullying the people with the slightly smaller muscles for a very long time” (Rorty, 101). This article contrasts deconstruction theory with pragmatism and states that while deconstruction theory could be helpful, most feminists completely rely on it, and it therefore loses its value. Instead, Rorty offers up a different solution: pragmatism. Pragmatism is defined as ‘an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.’ Based on this definition, the article goes on to say that pragmatism is a more logical ideology to use in the feminist movement because it is neutral between feminism and masculinity. The author states that pragmatism aids feminism better than deconstruction theory can in their mental approach to dethroning the patriarchy. However, if feminists are to make any true progress, they need to be practical and take action instead of relying solely on the psychological aspects of protest.
Although this is an excellent argument and starts to tie together the two solutions, it turns to pragmatism instead of sticking with the reliable and psychologically beneficial deconstruction theory. Deconstruction theory focuses on not only the binaries, but the social hierarchies that come with them, that many women are a part of. My argument is that deconstruction theory is the best tool to use when feminists choose to look at the psychological battle between genders. Feminists can “deconstruct” the literary works that have been so prevalent in the world, and therefore understand why society was built against them. They can even use deconstruction to dissect literature from all time periods and all waves of feminism. However, deconstruction theory can only do so much. This theory can only help feminists toward a path of understanding. To make a physical change in the world, they must be willing to take physical actions alongside mental ones. Therefore, to fully maximize the potential of feminism as a movement, it is important to combine the power of practical and radical actions with the psychological aspect of this literary theory.
It is necessary that we combine these aspects to better understand the society women have been placed in and to fully discern what actions are necessary to further the aspirations of the feminist movement. Without the connection of these two mentalities, we cannot reach the full potential feminism or deconstruction theory has to offer. Women and the other people involved in feminist ideologies have so many ambitions to offer to the world and to our society to improve its inclusivity and general function. Deconstruction theory will give these women the knowledge they need to fight against the system that pushes them down. I believe that knowledge is the superior way to come up with methods to improve their movement and further the feminist ideologies in our society. Without the understanding of our society’s inner workings, feminists would not be able to interpret what the best actions to make could even be. When we consider this, along with the other ideals aforementioned, it is clear that it is critical to combine the mental and physical aspects to better understand the society women have been placed in and to fully discern what actions are necessary to further the aspirations of the feminist movement. Without the connection of these two mentalities, we cannot reach the entire aptitude feminism has to offer.
An example of this can be shown through my own deconstructive interpretation of the text mentioned in Namatende-Sakwa’s research, The Paper Bag Princess. In her article, she attempts to exemplify the typical white male narrative by demonstrating how societal expectations and hierarchical definitions of women have been ingrained into even children. However, through my own interpretation, we can see that The Paper Bag Princess is in fact written to challenge and refute these traditional stereotypes and views of women from the white male. There are many moments in this children’s story that match typical stereotypes of women. There is a beautiful princess who lives in a castle with beautiful clothes. There is a dragon that comes and destroys her home and steals her prince, putting Elizabeth, the main character, into the classic damsel in distress situation. Near the end of the story, her prince even says “Elizabeth, you are a mess! You smell like ashes, your hair is all tangled and you are wearing a dirty old paper bag. Come back when you are dressed like a real princess” (Munsch, 28). This passage portrays the viewpoint of the dominating male, suggesting that she is not a real princess, ergo, not a normal or not a good enough female, if she does not fit the predetermined conception of what a woman should be.
However, the author uses these twisted viewpoints to challenge and refute the male viewpoint, bringing into the light instead the female viewpoint of a woman. This is shown when Elizabeth becomes the hero of the story, wears a paper bag to rescue her prince, uses her wit instead of her beauty to outsmart the dragon, and ultimately realizes that Prince Ronald does not need to define her as woman, choosing to not marry him after all. These are all events that challenge the traditional stereotypes of women, which all come from the white male viewpoint. The biggest refutation of this viewpoint comes at the end, where she doesn’t marry her prince. I believe this ending was chosen purposefully so that the author could show that Elizabeth was focusing on her own happiness and not relying on the definition of a woman given to her by a man. It is a very non-traditional happy ending, and one that follows a feminist standpoint rather than a traditional male one. By using these classic stereotypes and views to refute themselves, this story emphasizes the female viewpoint of a woman, therefore opposing the social hierarchy that places women lower than men.
Although this interpretation does a lot to show the feminist arguments, it is not enough. Deconstruction theory, as mentioned earlier, is the most effective when paired with physical actions. With this in mind, we must think about how we can physically apply these interpretations, not just psychologically. This story itself is a good first step. It’s a feministic children’s story that was written by a man. Not only that, but it challenges the stereotypes and expectations of women that the traditional white male view has set in our society and emphasizes a more feminist view instead. This is a good example of a step in the right direction because it shows a physical action that is challenging the social hierarchy in gender and is trying to make a difference. Another example of physical action we could take is teaching a more feminist interpretation to young children so that they grow up with a perspective of a female that comes from the female. Namatende-Sakwa explains that the children had been ingrained with the reaction of being ashamed of Elizabeth, a standard reaction when we consider the viewpoint that has been so commonly taught. But what if we changed the narrative? We could easily teach different interpretations of texts and make sure to include a diverse range of opinions, especially ones that include the feminist viewpoint. We can even teach young children to deconstruct the small stories they are reading and look at the ways that society shoves the traditional white male view into our perspectives. Especially when taught to children, the next bright minds, the next generation, we can make a real difference in how society perceives the world around them. This only furthers the ideology of deconstruction theory having an important role in the psychological side of feminism, right alongside the physical side.
But how are these topics and their connection important to the world we live in now? Why even care? As precursively stated, feminism is a complicated movement that is constantly growing and adapting to the latest changes of time and society. It is messy, passionate, daring, bold, and aspiring. It’s also controversial. But feminists have the opportunity to change things in the world when they are willing to open themselves up to new possibilities. This is when they can truly start challenging ideas and making a bigger difference. This is when they are free of societal constraints. Somehow, in this world, women are still fighting to gain equal rights and equal standing amongst men. In this battle, anything could help to make gains towards the ambitions feminism continues to create and develop. In the task set before us, the importance of recognizing the significant impact of combining the psychological tool of deconstruction theory with the physical remedy of practical and radical actions is abundantly clear. Combining these two critical components is a necessity for feminism to achieve the great capability of challenging the world around them and changing it. The marriage of these mechanisms is something that hasn’t been found anywhere in the timeline of feminism, and is therefore the chance to make history, just as the strong and brave women in the 1800’s did at the start of the feminist movement.
History isn’t just something we learn: it is something that we can create. Feminism, especially since it is always changing and adapting, already has and will continue to make history. Deconstruction theory is not only its own concept, but a key component to understanding the structure of our society and the “why” behind it all. Amalgamating these two concepts provides the opportunity to make an even bigger impact in the course of our country. Everyone wants a chance to change the world, and although this is a lot to take on, even starting small can cause a huge impact.
I have been told multiple times that I am not allowed to or am not capable of doing something just because of my gender. I initially pursued this topic because of my strong interest in English literary theories. However, the more that I wrote and the more that I researched, the more that I found myself connecting with this topic and understanding the depth and importance of deconstruction theory in feminism. When I was a young girl, I was told to step to the side and let my brother do all the heavy lifting and hard work, even though we needed the extra help and at this point in my life I was stronger than him. All so that we wouldn’t ‘damage his masculinity.’ I have also been told that because I am a girl, I can’t possibly be smart enough to go to college, that I just sit in the back of classes and flirt to get the answers in order to pass class. In other less specific circumstances, I have been told I’m not smart enough, not pretty enough, I don’t work hard enough, I’m just simply not enough. I strongly hold the belief that this is a product of this ingrained binary between male and female, where socially, females are thought of as ‘lesser.’ I have worked hard and accomplished much, mainly for myself and my own ambitions, but also to change how people perceive me and women in general. These are situations that I have grown past, but I know I will still face, just as young women all over the world do every day. Women, even in the 21st century, and even in young, new minds, are thought of as less than what they are worth. This is something I am passionate about changing, and this is my chance to make a difference. To make history. If we were all willing to risk even a little bit, then imagine what we could accomplish while fighting to create change.
Together, while utilizing deconstruction theory as a psychological component alongside the physical component of taking the needed actions in the feminist movement, we can challenge the system that ties us down and shape the future towards a more inclusive and equal society. We, the people, can make our own “better tomorrow.” We can make our own history.
Works Cited
Duyfhuizen, Bernard. “Deconstruction and Feminist Literary Theory.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 3, no. 1/2, 1984, pp. 159–69. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463832.
Namatende-Sakwa, Lydia. “Gendering the Text through Implicit Citations of Gendered Discourses: The Construction of Gender and Teacher Talk Around Children’s Fiction.” Gender and Language, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018, pp. 72-93. ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332297130_'Gendering'_the_text_through_implicit_ citations_of_gendered_discourses_the_construction_of_gender_and_teacher_talk_around_ children's_fiction.
Neeley, Carol Thomas. “Constructing the Subject: Feminist Practice and the New Renaissance Discourses.” English Literary Renaissance, vol. 18, no. 1, 1988, pp. 5–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43447233.
Rorty, Richard. “Feminism, Ideology, and Deconstruction: A Pragmatist View.” Hypatia, vol. 8, no. 2, 1993, pp. 96–103. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810339.
Williams, Nicole J. ""Graphic Statues" Female Monuments, Media Publicity, and the Struggle for Suffrage." Woman's Art Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, 2021, pp. 22-32.
Wpowereurope. “The Three Waves of Feminism.” W-Power, 15 Feb. 2018, wpowereurope.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/feminism-waves/.
Add comment
Comments