On the 'con's in deconstruction

["Restored into DSpace on 2013-11-14T00:53:20Z (GMT).", "Made available in DSpace on 2013-01-23T18:18:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 CAgeographer1997_p32-36.pdf: 110094 bytes, checksum: 4a93072bc3974d64e43bb36d6b7aac8d (MD5) Previous issue date: 1997", "Submitted by Michael Biondo (mbiondo@csun.edu) on 2013-01-23T18:18:39Z No. of bitstreams: 1 CAgeographer1997_p32-36.pdf: 110094 bytes, checksum: 4a93072bc3974d64e43bb36d6b7aac8d (MD5)"]

Language

English

Bibliographic Citation

The California Geographer 37: 32-36

Notes

Few commentators are neutral about deconstruction. Most critics of this method and political practice point to, first, its perceived reluctance to engage in traditional forms of social explanation, and, second, its presumed failure to posit valuative criteria that might guide political action. These are thought to stem from deconstruction's skepticism over the certainty of representation and its concomitant refusal to systematize the identification and hierarchicalization of social power relations. All have led commentators to assume that deconstructivists are agnostic with respect to the production of meaning, the presence of inequalities, and the taking of moral and ethical positions. As a result, deconstruction has been dismissed as a facile, self-nullifying commentary - one characterized by "mere" rhetoric, narcissistic reflection, and inert nihilism. In short, for these critics, deconstruction is a con.

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Visibility	Actions
	CAgeographer1997_p32-36.pdf	2020-10-22	Public	Download

Downloadable Content

On the 'con's in deconstruction