I started to give a review in "deconstructionist" fashion - blather on about architecture surpassing old notions of "in" and "our", of reason giving way to the Neitzhien Uberwill, of absurd interpretations of text, relative yet "ultimate" truth and the unholy trinity of angst, subconscienceness and desire.
I was afraid, though, that it would be taken seriously by students (quote unquote) of post-modern "thought".

The danger of deconstructionism is undeniable. When literature and music are culturally interpreted, ethics are situational, when one speaks of slavery as freedom or humanity as inhumanity, we are lost in a sea of intellectual flotsam. The personal connections to fascism - Heidegger, Paul de Man, Blanchot, Bataille - can be overlooked. The intellectual similarities can't: The supremacy of will (Nietzsche) over reason and logic ("homogenising"), an obsession with emotion and political discourse, the celebration of the group over the individual (identity politics) and the idea that truth is what the critic, dictator or prophet says it is. Deconstructionism is, needless to say, popular among folks favoring modern "intellectual" movements with fuzzy tenets.

Here, he speaks to us eliptically (of course) as he partakes in the familiar one step forward - two steps backward approach. But if one follows Deconstructionism, why can't HIS writings be interpreted as an S&M fantasy or a desire to be a Greek Orthodox priest in drag? How do we know what he really means since he suggests that we often write exactly opposite of what we mean?. He writes of God, death, solitude, life and sacrifice BUT in a new voice of existentialism and doubt. He employs vague, self-defined and self-referential terms which effectively shield him from serious study.

Derrida, for all his rampant explicating, gets hot under the collar when his own words undergo the deconstruction challenge. Few have questioned his writings since (1) many are impossible to understand and (2) they may or may not mean what they say. What began as a new approach to literature has evolved into the language of intellectual totalitarianism. No one denies his extensive knowledge of Western literature; what galls are the bewieldering interpretations and his ironic attempt at building a new ethos based on syllogism. As another reviewer stated, take it slow, read several times, search for meaning even when there is none.

Deconstruction is a deceptively useful philosophical device. However, this usefulness is severely limited. Deconstruction can present no positive conclusions. All it can do is show the fallibility of any attempt at such certain knowledge, primarily by exposing the inadequacy of language, a faculty so intimately connected with understanding. As a skeptic, I personally find deconstuction to be very pleasing. However, I am constantly annoyed by Derrida's insistance on frequently ignoring this aspect of his process. As a philosopher, I suppose the inclination to make some sort of positive assertion could be irresitible. I love the "play" and the analysis, but the attempt at ethical conclusions leaves me cold.

In "The Gift of Death," Derrida uses the story of Abraham and Isaac to distinguish between an absolute responsibility to "the other" from the typical ethical, "known" responsibility. I have never understood why it is that philosophers use this parable and others to decipher ethical realities. How much truth can one expect to extract from a fictional story? However, the idea that originary responsibility is always irresponsible is intriguing. Derrida proposes that Abraham's responsibility to God, the other, takes precedence over his lesser responsibilty to his son. And yet, later he makes the assertion that every other is an absolute other, making all responsibility absolute.

All of this emphasis on otherness ultimately leads to a kind of ethical paralysis, but Derrida does not acknowledge this. Throughout history, small differences have been blown up into impenetrable divisions. Racism, homophobia, sexism, ethnicity, nationality, religion, all the institutions that Deconstruction usually attacks are fully supported by these "irresponsible" ethical conclusions.

As I said before, the analysis reads like poetry and there are some very interesting ideas here. Derrida is frustrating, but worthwhile. I recommend this as well as "Writing and Difference."