I have been struck lately by the introduction of the word deconstruct(ion) into our more popular lexicon. I have also been struck by the fact that it is being misused. First of all, the press seem to be using the word a lot. The problem is that the word comes from a literary and philosophical theory rather to describe something rather complicated. It really doesn't me to tear apart. The definition, as the word was coined by Jacques Derrida and perfected by Paul de Man, refers to the reading of texts in an attempt to discover logical (or rhetorical) incompatibilities between the explicit and implicit planes of discourse and to demonstrate by means of a range of critical techniques how these incompatibilities are disguised and assimilated by the text. To put it too simplistically, one would find the hierarchy of a text, turn the hierarchy upside-down to analyze the meaning, rearrange the hierarchy to analyze the meaning, and then displace and reassert these conclusions within a nonhierarchical relationship to find "difference." .... and this is me trying to remember all this shit from ~15 years ago with some help from an old de Man book. However, it has fuck-all to do with trying to find the real meaning behind a soundbite from a politician, it is much more complicated than that.
What I am most interested in is how exactly the word found its way into our current popular condition? Perhaps I should deconstruct it... hmmm.
I have a few pet-peeves when it comes to our lexicon. First is the use of the word "depress" in relation to buttons. One does not depress a button... one presses it. To depress it seems cruel. Second, the use of disinterested rather than uninterested - there is a difference. Now I am finding that this use of deconstruct is starting to climb the list the more I hear it.
Posted by dmason at July 16, 2004 03:43 PM