On Deconstructionism
by
Jean-Pierre Caput


Let's start by getting right down to the bottom-line truth: Deconstructionism is parasitic.

Now don't start howling already. I know you Deconstructionists don't agree; you think you are merely members of a symbiotic colony of like thinkers who draw sustenance from each other. You think everybody wins in the end, right?

Sorry, but I'm afraid that concept defies the laws of physics. It's a zero sum gain situation, buster(s):

the pie is only so big, and if everybody starts snagging bites of each other's pies, somebody has to go hungry (and as usual, it's likely to be the existentialists).

Take for instance, Western Civilization. Deconstructionism teaches us that everything is in opposition; therefore - like that matter and anti-matter stuff they're always talking about on Star Trek - the opposition is sure to wipe both sides out (sooner or later). Like kablooey, man!

(But that hardly matters. Everybody knows Western Civilization is going downhill fast anyhow. It's on an oil-dripping, gasket wheezing, lifters clacking, bald-tired, old motorcycle that's going ninety miles an hour down a dead-end alley.)

Where was I?

Oh, yes, Deconstructionism.

Here is what I think: if the Deconstructionists keep on spending so much time distorting narratives, sooner or later they will stumble onto the truth - which is, that nobody knows the truth. Then where would we be?

Deconstructionism is a branch of philosophy that suggests that none of the other branches of philosophy knows what the hell they are talking about. Can this be true? If it is, I bet all the other philosophers are going to be devastated. They might have to commit professional suicide; you know, become Scientologists or something. Or try to garner a position at Cambridge (where nobody will ever notice them again).

You have to admit those Deconstructionists are damn clever to come up with a philosophy that says everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Brilliant. How can anybody argue with a philosophy that arrives at no conclusions? What are you going to do, disagree with what you think they meant but didn't say?

Derrida put it in a nutshell: "Go there where you cannot go, to the impossible; it is the only way of coming or going."

What profundity! Such straightforward non-orphic lucidity simply cannot be argued with. As Gertrude Stein said, "The text is the text is the text" (at least I think it was her that said that; or maybe it was Bertrand Russell who concluded that "Since a rose smells better than cabbage, it must make a better soup").

Anyhow, I hope this little essay has clarified at least some of the more obtuse parameters that underlie the philosophy of Deconstructionism. If you have any questions, you can text me, and I'll analyze it. (Get it? Analyze the text? No? Oh well, never mind.)


Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.


Want to comment on this story? Click Here to go the Literary Review Discussion Forum (for the subject, enter "Comment on story Deconstructionism")