In Paul de Man’s “Semiology and Rhetoric,” he discusses the development of different literary theories over time including formalism, structuralism and post-structuralism, and then denounces them all. Instead, de Man proposes his idea of deconstruction. It was important for him to discuss all previous theories in his essay because deconstruction is not exactly a new theory—it is a way of pulling these existing structures apart. He believes that all previous theories have one thing in common—these binaries of form/grammar and content/rhetoric that he disagrees with. De Man criticizes formalists such as Saussure for focusing solely on form (grammar) and ignoring content (rhetoric). He feels that this method of reading severely reduces the meaning of a given text. De Man’s argument here is that there needs to be more emphasis on rhetoric but that neither rhetoric nor grammar can stand alone in providing literary meaning. Instead, both grammar and rhetoric must exist together, although you can only read a text focusing on one or the other, its important for the reader to see that the text can have multiple meanings.

De Man discusses the argument regarding the binary of form and content and how they’ve switched roles over time. “The polarities of inside and outside have been reversed, but they are still the same polarities that are at play: internal meaning has become outside reference, and the outer form has become the intrinsic structure.”  However, according to deconstruction it does not matter what is inside or outside. What matters is that both of these things are connected and interdependent. Grammar on its own, for instance, cannot grasp things such as sarcasm and rhetoric alone cannot exist on its own because it needs structure to be understood. However, de Man points out that the two ways of analyzing a text cannot exist together or else they would undo each other. This made me think of the metaphor Saussure used for the signifier/signified—comparing it to a sheet of paper where you can only see one side at a time and the two sides cannot be separated.

De Man uses the example of the conversation Archie Bunker has with his wife Edith when she asks him about how he would like his bowling shoelaces tied. Archie replies with a rhetorical question—“What’s the difference?” Edith represents a formalist in this situation in the way that she takes his question literally, i.e. focusing on grammar, and begins to respond when clearly he was not asking what the actual difference was. Using the lens of rhetoric is the best way in this case to see what Archie actually meant—“I don’t give a damn what the difference is.”   However, de Man’s point is that the question can be read both ways and its important as a reader to understand that and be able to read it both ways in order to extract as much meaning from the text as possible.