Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
In the mid-1960s the structuralist approach that meaning can be discovered through an
examination of its structural codes was challenged by the maxim of “undecidability” or “free play”; a
text has many meanings, and therefore no definitive interpretation is possible. In this respect, a new
approach to reading, deconstruction, asks a different set of questions, endeavouring to show that what
a text claims it says and what it actually says are discernibly different, and also “literary language
constantly undermines its own meaning” (Eagleton 145). In his writings, Jacques Derrida never states
the encompassing tenets of his critical approach. He claims that his approach to reading and literary
analysis is more a “strategic device” than a methodology, more a strategy or approach to literature than
a school or theory of criticism (Bressler 118). Derrida goes further by studying Ferdinand de
Saussure’s ideas on sign and difference, and he accepts Saussure’s assumption that the linguistic sign
is both arbitrary and conventional. It is this concept that meaning in language is determined by the
differences among the language signs that Derrida borrows from Saussure as a key building block in
According to Derrida, Western metaphysics has invented a variety of terms that function as
centres: God, reason, origin, being, essence, truth, humanity, beginning, end, self, etc. In his Structure,
Sign, Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, Derrida claims that “it would be possible to show
that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated the
constant of a presence-eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject)
aletheia [truth], transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth” (249). Each
can be regarded as self-sufficient and self-originating. Bressler asserts that each of these is created by
the tendency of logocentrism: the belief that an ultimate reality or centre of truth exists and can serve
as the basis for all our thoughts and actions (120). The logocentric habit of thinking operates in
accordance with “binary oppositions”. This is the either/or mentality that inevitably leads to dualistic
thinking and to the centring and decentring of the transcendental signified. Some of the traditional
oppositions one is always privileged and the other is unprivileged. Binary oppositions are conceptually
established and become the basis of one’s world view. Therefore, Derrida wishes to dismantle or
1
deconstruct the structure of such binary oppositions. As Selden puts, “To succeed in twisting free of
the logocentric tradition would be to write, and to read, in such a way as to renounce this ideal [a
struggle to break out of language]. To destroy the tradition would be to see all the texts of that tradition
as self-delusive, because using language to do what language cannot do. Language itself, so to speak,
Deconstruction in Derridean sense does not only mean to read a text according to certain ways
and strategies but it also shakes the ground of the primary interpretation of a given text. Through
deconstruction Derrida tries to expand the conceptual limits of the meaning of the text compelled by
metaphysics, and he explores meaning in the margin of the text through unrestricted semantic play and
limitless interpretation. Therefore, it can be said that “For de Man, as for his colleague Hillis Miller,
literature does not need to be deconstructed by the critic: it can be shown to deconstruct itself, and
moreover is actually ‘about’ this operation” (Eagleton 145). Derrida seeks to subvert the intentions of
texts that are caused by metaphysical oppositions through deconstruction. The aim of deconstructive
reading is not destroying the primary intention of the text and offering a new unifying final truth. On
the contrary, it discloses the ‘unproductive’ text by giving access to new spaces or alternatives. In
other words, deconstruction deals with the inspiring others which are repressed or delegitimized in the
text. Therefore, each text can be read employing a deconstructive mode, The Irish playwright Oscar
Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest has always been handled as a criticism of the late Victorian
society. As Alex Thomson claims, “Much of the humour of Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of
Being Earnest depends on the comic inversion of the usual ways we interpret the world, ways which
are consistent with the underlying philosophical framework that we have been discussing here”
(310).Being a play which throws the reader into the realm of complex, contested, symbolised and
interactive, it cannot be simply deconstructed but it naturally deconstructs itself due to its own
instability. If one follows some methodology s/he can reveal how the text of The Importance of Being
2
The concept of reality as displayed in the play is a problematized one, because deconstruction
reveals other alternative facts that are ignored by traditional and Romantic theories of literature
although the text itself flaunts this problem. It is demonstrated through several scenes in which in
which “objective reality” cannot be known. Moreover, as deconstructive reading implies there is no
transcendence, and the universe is a closed system, so the play proves to show that the reality is
entirely subjective. As reality is a construct created by people, the knowledge they acquire is also
In the play characters create their own reality and Oscar Wilde shows their “real” concepts in a
parodying manner. To begin with, the wealthy London bachelor character Jack/John Worthing creates
an imaginary brother named Ernest in order to come up to town as often as he likes. When his rich
friend Algernon finds out the inscription on his cigarette case; “from little Cecily with her fondest love
to her dear uncle Jack” (5), he finds out his true name, which is Jack Worthing. Believing his manners
You have always told me it was Ernest. I have introduced you to every
one as Ernest. You answer to the name of Ernest. You look as if your
name was Ernest. You are the most earnest-looking person I ever saw
in my life. It is perfectly absurd your saying that your name isn’t Ernest.
It’s on your cards…I will keep this as a proof that your name is Ernest
if ever you attempt to deny it to me (Italics are mine) (IBE 6).
“proof” of reality. Then Jack explains why he has lied about his real name: “Well my name is Ernest in
town and Jack in the country, and the cigarette was given to me in the country” (6). This scene clearly
shows that whatever is created as reality by a person or a group of persons is believed to be knowledge
for others.
Like Jack, Algernon also creates an imaginary friend that is called Bunbury so that he can get rid
3
The knowledge the other characters get from these young men is not reliable at all. To illustrate,
Cecily, Gwendolen and her mother Aunt Augusta always rely on these men’s words but, in fact, they
merely interpret realities according to their expectations. In other words, it can be said that knowledge
is limited within the interpretation of the knower. Thus it is always sceptical. In this sense, one can
investigate both of the girls’ reactions to the name “Ernest”; their obsession with the name reflects
how their understanding the reality is problematic. Firstly when Gwendolen is with “Ernest/Jack” she
frankly confesses:
Even before I met I was far from indifferent to you. We live, as I hope
you know, Mr Worthing, in an age of ideals. The fact is constantly
mentioned in the most expensive monthly magazines, and has reached
the provincial pulpits, I am told; and my ideal has always been to love
some one of the name of Ernest. There is something in that name that
inspires absolute confidence…I knew I was destined to love you (IBE
13-4).
Cecily’s inclination about the name Ernest is not less interesting than Gweldolen’s. When Algernon
pretends to be Jack’s irresponsible brother Ernest, she verbalizes her ideas about this name too:
Why, we have been engaged for the last three months…I dare say it
was foolish of me, but I fell in love with you, Ernest…You must not
laugh at me, darling, but it had always been a girlish dream of mine to
love someone whose name was Ernest. There is something in that name
that seems to inspire absolute confidence. I pity any poor married
woman whose husband is not called Ernest (IBE 43).
These women believe in the validity of words/signs, and these words count for them as the name
Ernest empowers both of the girls. They are under the influence of the conventional preoccupations of
Victorian society, such as social position or income. Therefore, they can accept only what they want to
choose as reality.
Another matter concerning knowledge is Algernon’s subversion of some English proverbs such
as washing one’s clean linen in public(9) or three is company and two is none(9). Algernon’s altering
these proverbs functions as a refusal of common knowledge. In the general knowledge the proverbs is
‘to wash one’s dirty linen’. In the play Algernon contemplates on the behaviour of married couples in
dinner parties, and objects to uninteresting romanticism of married couples. He shortly finds marriage
an uninteresting and unromantic activity: “You don’t seem to realise, that in married life three is
company and two is none” (9). According to the common knowledge, it is ‘two is company and three
4
is none’. He means in every marriage one of the couples inevitably cheats on the other. By using the
thoughtful play of contradictions he subverts the commonly believed knowledge or the domineering
authority in its many forms in order to provide a free space for other alternative suppressed ideas.
The climax of the play is the scene in which how Miss Prism lost Jack at Victorian Station is
explained. The scene reverses the generally-accepted rules of reality, and consequently becomes funny,
because upon learning to have been found in Miss Prism’s handbag Jack immediately calls her
“Mother” (70). The play obviously makes fun of the reality by underlining the slippery ground where
reality is situated. In The Importance of Being Earnest, reality and knowledge are two concepts that
are always unreliable and can be reconstructed according to people, time and place.
That is, texts are collections of words and pictures/‘signifiers’ that have no inherent meaning or
connection to the objective world of things or objects/’signified’ (Of Grammatology 127). Then one
can say that since language is the medium for communication or since its constructions are unstable,
then interpretation is also uncertain. In other words language can never convey reality but it can only
convey social or cultural biases, that is, “the effect of the real” (127). Moreover, as Mark Poster claims
about language and the relationship between language and the subject:
Language is not a simply a tool for expression; it is also a structure that defines the
limits of communication and shapes the subjects who speak. Since Saussure,
structuralists emphasize that language is a system that defines the subject. Mikhail
Bakhtin adds that all linguistic phenomena are dialogic, part of an infinitely
continuous web of communications whose meanings are not determined by the
individual but are always open to redetermination by others… [Language] is not
simply a vehicle of individual expression, a tool to facilitate action, a means to
determine truths and falsehoods. It is instead an internally complex yet open world
inextricably tied to social action (129).
Accordingly, in The Importance of Being Earnest there are flying signifiers but no signified.
As Derrida points out, every signified is another signifier, or every sign is always “a sign of a sign”
(Of Grammatology 43). In this respect, every sign is forever caught up in a “play” or “network” of
differential relations with other signs. To illustrate, the name Ernest is ironically used by two
irresponsible, idle and pragmatist characters. However, they use it to overcome the authority figures or
concepts in their lives. That is, it is their way of escaping social obligations and limitations.
5
In The Importance of Being Earnest, several binary oppositions which have been established
and used by society to categorize many concepts are also subverted through language. At the
beginning of the play when Algernon speaks to his manservant, Lane, the binary between the master
and servant is reversed by depicting such a smart servant and such a childish master:
Lane’s views on marriage seem somewhat lax. Really, if the lower orders
don’t set up us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem,
as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility (IBE 2).
Algernon also subverts the roles between the intellectual and ordinary men by stating,
The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious
if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility!… Literary
criticism is not your forte, my dear fellow. Don’t try it. You should leave that
to people who haven’t been at a University. They do it so well in the daily
papers (IBE 8).
Both male characters, Jack and Algernon, try to be christened as Ernest because their beloved
ones demand it. Both Gwendolen and Cecily believe the name Ernest to be a reliable sign of an
earnest nature as if a signifier could signify the essential attribute of that to which it refers. In this
claims, man does not speak language, but “language speaks us” (124). Thus the idea of re-naming
someone shows the constructedness of reality or knowledge through language which is also another
social construct. It is not their personality, not their sense of morality but their names the girls care
The play, moreover, subverts the homonym earnest/Ernest. As the title foreshadows being
‘earnest/Ernest’ is a very important feature for both of the male characters in the play:
The Importance of Being Earnest might not enjoin us to be true to ourselves, but
reminds us that there is really no difference between being earnest and being called
Ernest, between being true and stimulating truth, at least in a world where people
believe that names actually ‘mean’ something (Thomson 310).
However, they are really neither ‘earnest’ nor ‘Ernest’. The word earnest/Ernest creates a thoughtful
play of contradiction because the homonym is used to both undermine the title’s apparent moralism
During the interview Jack is found out to be “originless” (IBE 18). Not having an origin is
clearly a reference to the constructed nature of language and all the other binary systems.
6
• The Nature of the Subject in The Importance of Being Earnest:
In The Importance of Being Earnest the other construct displayed is the ‘myth’ of the
In this sense, it can be said that the subject is a constructed entity, rather that a stable one. Thus,
characters in The Importance of Being Earnest only achieve their identities through their groups or
culture. So for Derrida there is no origin except the originary difference, which is what Rousseau was
able to ‘say without saying’ (Of Grammatology, 215). In this respect Jack is called Ernest when he is
in the town. On the one hand his friends and his new life in London grant him a double life. On the
other, Cecily and Miss Prism know him to be Jack Worthing. Then if the identity of an individual
depends on the knowledge of other people around him it is quite obvious that individual identity is
The ironic end of the play also displays the concept of the constructed subjects. The Cartesian
terms of the subject, whish is “a mind that confronts material objects or other minds” (Poster 138), is
destabilised in the play. As in the Cartesian world, only individual minds have knowledge, rest of
nature is dumb. However, now When Jack is informed to be Lady Bracknell’s sister’s son, and
consequently Algernon’s elder brother, his Christian name, Ernest, is learnt from ‘the Army Lists’ that
have long rested in the bookcase of Jack. When the subject has access to a data that ‘data’, here it is
an old army record, makes him/her passive or its object (Poster 138). At the end, Jack “finds out that
all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth” (IBE 72). Here the sentence again deconstructs
itself when the word “truth” is concerned, because all the efforts and investigation help the subject
Earnest:
7
Anything that is totalizing is a great challenge to deconstruction. It can be said that many
totalizing tendencies are parodied in the play. The time known as Victorian was controlled by a very
powerful society. As a man of great intelligence and wit, Wilde is able to observe his society and its
corrupt sides: “the uncomfortable experience of living a double life must have been an everyday
concern for Wilde: a gay man at a time when homosexuality was illegal” (Thomson 311).
However, “will to ignorance opens itself to uncertainty, to the chance- or trace-like structure of the
disorder of the things as they are, a sort of structure-without-structure that can never be revealed in the
disclosure of truth as a presentation of the thing itself” (Lucy 130). To illustrate, Aunt Augusta also
In the play the wooing scenes of lovers can be considered to be examples of moral and social
conventions of Victorian Age. For instance, when Jack declares his love to Gwendolen her response is:
Gwendolen as a young and naïve woman is clearly controlled by the conventions of her
society in choosing her husband. Therefore, she insistently wants Jack to make ‘the pose’ during his
proposal. Cecily too, has some ideas about a ‘proper’ engagement and marriage that are deduced from
the conventional norms of the society. For all characters of the play these important ‘rules’ stand for
the moral-making and totalizing concepts. They create the illusion of reality for them and ‘order’ their
lives according to these moral rules. Their constructed nature or artificiality is revealed through
parodies and pastiches by the playwright. The social codes are not only influential in society but they
are also made visible to be satirized and parodied or ‘deconstructed’ by the text itself.
8
To sum up, The Importance of Being Earnest is quite a self-deconstructive text as it
problematizes the totalizing concepts, the validity of language and reality, binary oppositions, the
The play itself warns us that to uncover the truth about it might turn out to be simply
the simulation of earnestness, the invention of a stylish claim to deep insight! Any
attempt to stabilise this problem and offer an interpretation of the play by appealing
to Wilde’s intentions, to his critical writings, or to his audience’s expectations, will
narrow and reduce our experience of the text as contradictory or paradoxical. What
makes the play literary is its resistance to any attempt to reduce it to being the
vehicle for one message or another (311).
The play testifies to the statement that no matter when and why a text has been written it is constantly
open to interpretation, and as a text is a network of arbitrary signifiers it can never be stabilized/frozen