Deconstructing Deconstruction

When taken to its logical conclusion, Jacques Derrida's literary theory of "deconstruction" argues that there is, in fact, no such thing as a literal reality. Instead, we abide by a series of appearances and ideas held together by social constructs...though not as volunteers! After all, in order for deconstruction to exist (and for us to keep buying Michael Foucalt's books) we must buy into the belief that our pseudo "reality" is really the byproduct of continued hegemonic rule--the type of nefarious social rule that requires the application of a white-hot light of truth shone only by scholars of deconstruction. Thus, the theory of deconstruction naturally argues that "reality" is an inherently oppressive construction, and is geared to pressure us--the everyday peons--into a version of reality that adheres to the hegemony's wishes.

Sounding very Marxist to you? Bare with me for a tangential minute as we unpack that notion, because the two theories share a great many underlying similarities. Marxism argues that our reality is largely shaped by interactions with dominant economic systems, which is in line with deconstruction's emphasis on social orders. In this sense, deconstruction acts as a sort of Cultural Marxism--a belief that what may appear to be unique social phenomenon (such as traditional gender roles and the Western world's nuclear family) are in fact dictated by historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy.

Herein lies my biggest critique of deconstruction, and really Postmodernism in general, as it is obsessed with unearthing any and all metaphysical contradictions in everyday social life--often to the point that is confuses elements of society that require no analysis to begin with.

Observe:

Is sex a social construct? "Of course!" yells the deconstructionist, "It exists in its current form because hierarchical pressures demand it be so!"  Than is sexual dimorphism also socially constructed? "Well...elaborate," mumbles the suddenly flustered deconstructionist.

If you insist:

Sexual dimorphism exists, yes? It is merely a function of nature, and can be found in many species. Sexual reproduction too exists because NATURE, not SOCIETY, demand it to. In obsessing over social constructions, deconstruction forces itself into the disdaining of nature and anything that is undeniably natural. Perhaps sexual dimorphism, along with other natural phenomenon, have dictated society's interpretation of sex and not the other way around? Or would you actually argue that males and females come in different sizes for the sake of perpetuating this alleged hierarchy. Do animals follow suit? Does the female pheasant exist as a third the size of her male counterpart but for the sake of appeasing the almighty pheasant hierarchy?

You see, the trick of deconstruction--its synthesis, if you will--is gathering up all of reality's most controversial/confusing/paradoxical facets (like sex) and presenting them in a way that would have the populace believe that all of life's facets share the same flawed function. But the existence of gray does not refute the existence of black and white. History has proven that action precedes thought. Societies have forever functioned in the same way: they seek out a food source, construct shelter, craft weapons, and create a social method for successful procreation. It is only after the action has been completed that the society makes up reasons as to why it has acted in this way.

The most brilliant, withering critique of society will ultimately produce nothing if there is not substance to fill the hole. Deconstruction does not act as a means to an end, but rather as the end itself. It is a pseudo, suicidal philosophy that arrives at ground zero, and stays there. There are no more builders...no more thinkers...