jne-
     
     
      Backlash
     
    
   
   
    
     
      A
      Column
      for
      the
      Politically
      Incorrect
     
    
   
   
    
     
         
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Coeditors:
      Peter
      Hanus
      &
      Joseph
      Murphy
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Deconstructing
      Deconstructionists
     
    
   
   
    
     
      **Jacques
      Derrida
      is]
      the
      kind
      of
      philosopher
      who
     
     
      gives
      bullshit
      a
      bad
      name.’’--Michel
      Foucault
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Deconstruction,
      as
      a
      method
      of
      critical
      analysis
      of
     
     
      written
      works,
      grew
      out
      of
      the
      theories
      of
      Martin
     
     
      Heidegger
      in
      the
      writings
      of
      French
      philosopher
     
     
      Jacques
      Derrida.
      Its
      primary
      exponent
      in
      North
     
     
      America,
      and
      friend
      of
      Derrida,
      was
      Yale
      professor
     
     
      Paul
      de
      Man.
      These
      individuals
      played
      a
      key
      role
      in
     
     
      exposing
      deconstruction
      for
      what
      it
      really
      is,
      but
      first
     
     
      we
      will
      look
      at
      what
      the
      proponents
      of
      deconstruction
     
     
      claim
      it
      to
      be.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      According
      to
      those
      who
      extol
      the
      virtues
      of
     
     
      deconstruction,
      it
      is
      a
      ‘‘performance’’
      ora
      ‘‘practise’’
     
     
      by
      which
      a
      new
      form
      of
      logic
      is
      used
      to
      ‘‘unmask,’’
     
     
      ‘‘subvert,’’
      ‘‘dismantle,’’
      ‘‘expose,’’
      and
      ‘‘chal-
     
     
      lenge’’
      the
      meaning
      of
      literary
      texts.
      The
      great
     
     
      discovery
      of
      Derrida
      etal
      was
      that
      there
      was
      no
     
     
      obvious
      meaning
      to
      literary
      text:
      the
      original/
     
     
      originary
      meaning
      is
      nota
      controlling
      factor
      in
      textual
     
     
      meanings,
      all
      interpretations
      are
      misinterpretations,
     
     
      and
      so
      on.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      For
      the
      original
      French
      deconstructionists,
      who
     
     
      openly
      referred
      to
      themselves
      as
      Marxists,
      this
      meant
     
     
      that
      they
      believed
      they
      had
      discovered
      the
      means
      by
     
     
      which
      the
      bourgeoisie--in
      the
      most
      sinister
      and
      hide-
     
     
      ous
      of
      manners--had
      concocted
      ofa
      tool
      in
      which
      to
     
     
      oppress
      the
      proletariat.
      The
      bourgeoisie
      used
      lan-
     
     
      guage
      itself
      as
      a
      means
      of
      social
      control.
      The
      ruling
     
     
      classes
      have
      pretended
      that
      language
      was
      an
      objective,
     
     
      fixed
      mirroring
      of
      reality
      when
      in
      fact
      language
      is
     
     
      created
      in
      such
      a
      manner
      to
      enforce
      existing
      hierar-
     
     
      chies
      and
      inequalities.
      As
      such,
      deconstruction
      has
     
     
      become
      a
      favourite
      tool
      among
      the
      politically
      correct.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Now
      don’t
      pass
      judgement
      on
      deconstruction
      too
     
     
      quickly
      and
      immediately
      say
      it’s
      silly,
      upon
      further
     
     
      examination
      it
      almost
      makes
      sense.
      The
      way
      that
     
     
      words
      are
      strung
      together,
      the
      actual
      letters
      that
      are
     
     
      used,
      were
      decided
      upon
      by
      someone.
      Even
      the
     
     
      letters
      we
      use
      can
      come
      under
      this
      scrutiny,
      why
      was
     
     
      ‘*i?’
      chosen
      to
      symbolise
      ‘‘i’’?
      There
      must
      have
      been
     
     
      some
      reason.
      Come
      to
      think
      about
      it,
      all
      this
      stuff
     
    
   
   
    
     
      UPEI
      X-P
      RESS
     
    
   
   
    
     
      February6,
      1992
     
    
   
   
    
     
      was
      probably
      done
      by
      men.
      And
      guess
      who
      they
     
     
      oppressed?
     
    
   
   
    
     
        
     
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Some
      radical
      feminists
      have
      used
      deconstruction
      to
     
     
      uncover
      the
      oppression
      of
      women;
      for
      example,
      the
     
     
      word
      ‘‘woman.’’
      Let’s
      take
      a
      closer
      look
      at
      the
     
     
      alphabet,
      however,
      and
      see
      what
      some
      letters
      may
     
     
      have
      been
      created
      for.
      ‘‘i’’
      isa
      rather
      masculine
      and
      —
     
     
      phallic
      letter,
      fairly
      long
      and
      erect
      and
      it
      appears
      as
      if
     
     
      it
      is
      about
      to
      burst.
      “‘y’’,
      on
      the
      other
      hand,
      has
      quite
     
     
      a
      spread
      to
      it.
      As
      such,
      these
      letters
      can
      act
      as
      per-
     
     
      fect
      channels
      to
      direct
      women
      into
      heterosexuality.
     
     
      This
      brings
      up
      the
      question
      why
      nobody
      has
     
     
      deconstructed
      the
      words
      ‘‘wimmin’’
      or
      ‘‘womyn’’.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      As
      well,
      according
      to
      Derrida,
      the
      spoken
      word
      comes
     
     
      from
      the
      written
      word.
      Thus
      anything
      that
      is
      said
      can
     
     
      be
      deconstructed
      as
      well...
      except
      deconstruction.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      be?’’
      The
      answer
      is
      “‘deconstruction
      cannot
      be
      de-
     
     
      fined.’’
      Itis
      nota
      ‘‘theory’’,
      itis
      a
      ‘‘performance’’,
     
     
      u
      new
      form
      of
      logic.
      It
      cannot
      be
      defined
      or
      stated
      as
     
     
      the
      ‘‘old’’
      form
      of
      logic
      is
      because
      to
      define
      and
      state
     
     
      it
      is
      to
      use
      the
      old
      logic.
      Don’t
      you
      get
      it?
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Obviously
      the
      uninitiated
      will
      ask
      ‘‘How
      can
      this
     
     
      4
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      John
      Ellis,
      inhis
      book
      Against
      Deconstruction
     
     
      (1989),
      found
      this
      explanation
      wanting
      as
      **[to]
      allow
     
     
      the
      claim
      that
      a
      different
      kind
      oflogiccouldnotbe
      ~
     
     
      characterized
      in
      any
      way...
      would
      be
      to
      exceed
      the
     
     
      possibilities
      of
      all
      possible
      logics.
      If
      it
      is
      claimed
     
     
      that
      there
      is
      anew
      kind
      of
      logic
      that
      cannot
      be
      shown
     
     
      to
      operate
      in
      a
      way
      that
      is
      identifiable
      as
      its
      own,
      we
     
     
      should
      have
      no
      reason
      to
      know
      of
      its
      existence.’’
      But
     
     
      considering
      that
      some
      people
      are
      quite
      aware
      ofthe
      _
     
     
      existence
      of
      deconstruction,
      then
      it
      exists
      and
      can
      be
      —
     
     
      deconstructed.
      But
      alternatively,
      one
      could
      then
     
     
      deconstruct
      the
      deconstruction
      of
      deconstruction.
      But
     
     
      it’s
      also
      true
      that
      we
      could
      then
      deconstruct
      the
     
     
      deconstruction
      of
      the
      deconstruction
      of
     
     
      deconstruction.
      So,
      as
      it
      works
      out,
      take
      the
      number
     
     
      of
      times
      the
      string
      ‘‘deconstruct’’
      appears,
      divide
      this
     
     
      by
      two,
      and
      if
      you
      get
      an
      integer
      then
      you
      have
      a
     
     
      politically
      incorrect
      analysis.
      In
      reality
     
     
      deconstruction
      falls
      into
      a
      Russell’s
      paradox
      and
      is
     
     
      quite
      useless
      as
      a
      tool
      of
      analysis.
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      But
      you
      can’t
      get
      deconstructionists
      to
      admit
      to
      this.
     
     
      Orcan
      you?
      A
      recent
      scandal
      surrounding
      some
      of
      @
     
     
      deconstruction’s
      own
      has
      led
      the
      practitioners
      of
      this,
     
     
      ‘‘performance’’
      to
      some
      fairly
      embarrassing
      admis-
      7
     
     
      sions.
      |