How does deconstruction differ from New Criticism in the study of literature?

Deconstruction and New Criticism differ significantly in their approach to literary analysis, particularly regarding the stability and autonomy of the text.

New Criticism

New Criticism, which dominated Anglo-American literary studies until the 1970s, treated the literary work as a self-contained, independent unit of meaning. It emphasized:1
* Intrinsic Value: Critics focused exclusively on the text itself, rejecting the use of external historical or biographical data.1
* Harmonious Meaning: The approach sought to understand works as a unified construction of literal and nonliteral meanings, often highlighting how irony and paradox contribute to a work's internal coherence.2
* Close Reading: The primary method was a rigorous analysis of the text's language, emphasizing the connotative and associative values of words.1

Deconstruction

Deconstruction, emerging as a post-structuralist movement, challenged the assumptions of New Criticism. Its key differences include:2
* Conflict vs. Harmony: Rather than viewing a work as a harmonious fusion of meanings, deconstructive readings treat texts as sites of intractable conflict between different types of meaning.2
* Intertextuality: Deconstruction generally examines a work not as a self-contained artifact but as a product of its relations with other texts and discourses.2
* Critique of Categories: These readings emphasize how texts implicitly critique the very categories critics use to analyze them, specifically targeting the "binary oppositions" (such as speech/writing or literal/metaphorical) inherent in Western thought.234

Ultimately, while New Criticism sought to define the "meaning" of a work through its internal tensions, deconstruction aims to show that meaning is never fully present or stable, but rather endlessly "deferred" through the play of linguistic differences.234