Over the last several weeks I have been wrestling with a definition for deconstruction as used by Jacques Derrida and his followers. I almost quit until I read this piece, again, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (read the whole article here):
Deconstruction is parasitic in that rather than espousing yet another grand narrative, or theory about the nature of the world in which we partake, it restricts itself to distorting already existing narratives, and to revealing the dualistic hierarchies they conceal. While Derrida’s claims to being someone who speaks solely in the margins of philosophy can be contested, it is important to take these claims into account. Deconstruction is, somewhat infamously, the philosophy that says nothing.
Maybe I am now beginning to understand why Derrida refused to define deconstruction. If he defined deconstruction it would become something rather than nothing or it would become an overarching, guiding metanarrative itself rather than merely a critique of all such things. We can argue for or against his success in this matter, but this seems to make the most sense to me.
If you have read any Derrida, and you think you agree with what I presented here or you totally disagree, you opinion is very valuable to me. I need input.