Appleman Ch 6

In this chapter on Deconstruction, Appleman offers bountiful resources to the reader in efforts to help us grasp the concept of deconstruction. The beginning of this chapter served as sort of a disclaimer for the audience, warning us that this topic is dense and extremely controversial. Although her intension was to lead readers into an unbiased definition of the term, she actually ended up defending it more so than defining it. The tone of the first portion of this chapter inspired a sense of dread for this particular theory. I felt 'if I have to defend a theory with this much fervor, then how am I supposed to present it to a class of adolescent students?'. However, as the chapter progressed and the explication of deconstruction continued, the theory became less and less daunting. I like how deconstruction does not shove a proposed meaning to a text down the audiences throats. I like the contradictory nature of deconstruction; it can be both a liberating enterprise and a stifling one. The freedom of looking at a text while simultaneously acknowledging your own biases or influences or the authors influences is quite interesting. On the other hand, it has potential to frighten people as well.
The exercise that the students did on semiotics (looking at classic metaphors) is something that can definitely serve as a heuristic for deconstruction. This can also bring about feelings of anxiety and hopelessness as alluded to at the end of this chapter with the student rachel. Although I don't agree with Appleman's comparison of deconstruction to nihilism (this comparison seemed a bit rash), I know that it can produce feelings of utter frustration. In teaching my students this theory, I would let them know that this represents only one among a host of lenses to read the world. I'd teach them that deconstruction is a way to uncover misconceptions, overgeneralizations and hackneyed assumptions. Appleman explains the theory's purpose in light of a high school classroom: 'Deconstruction helps students question the certainty of meaning without relying exclusively on the personal lens of reader response....it requires the redaer to be an active meaning maker, unlike reader response, with its sometimes sloppy overgeneralization and overapplication, deconstruction requires the rigor of close reading' (114). The function of deconstruction in the classroom should allow students to think critically and be an inductive learner.