In our last installment of Woke Tactics, we discussed what deconstruction looks like in the real world. Now that we know what deconstruction is and what it looks like, we can answer the questions that we are left with: how do we deal with deconstruction? How do we push back on it when we see it, and what tools do we have at our disposal to prevent the slide into relativism and nihilism that deconstruction pulls us toward? I am going to answer these questions today.
The problem begins with calling deconstruction a philosophy which basically translates as "love or seeking of wisdom". Deconstructionist do not seek wisdom nor do they state achieving a greater sense of it as their goal. I don't want to come across as pedantic--you do need some word and despite its flaws well, why not "philosophy"?--but it does set up some potential failures. The rest of the essay suggests that those wanting to respond effectively to deconstructionists should take extra care to scrub their faces, keep their noses clean, and pre-filter every spoken or written word with a good measure of tone policing (funny how that doesn't work the other way). I'd like to think that you're right, but my sense deep down is that these noble efforts won't move the needle of the futility meter very much if at all.
Despite this, I am not a cynic although the time frame for my optimism almost certainly exceeds the remainder of my earthly life. Look at the great job that WD has done documenting the rise of deconstructionism. That project has taken at least fifty years if not more, and you almost have to admire the tenacity and self-discipline that has resulted in the broad institutional captures that they have now achieved. It should be a lesson for anyone who dreams of untangling the tentacles of this hydra. It won't be undone with debate tricks or by fine men and women who talk and dress nice. What it will take is a long-term effort, starting at ground zero, because fifty years of passivity and neglect have put us there. It will require a positive philosophy (this time using the word properly) that focuses on what we should believe rather than what we should reject. And, it has to be aimed at younger people, particularly those who have been thoroughly soused in deconstructionism and its fruits, who will eventually get the sinking feeling that they have been defrauded. Pleasing the aesthetics of boomers like me is a waste of time.
Thanks for the explanation; I was really looking for it after all the other essays explaining deconstruction in detail. While I follow the logic of the recommendation, I think that the challenge of not leaving any door (or window) open to potential deconstructions is almost insurmountable. I think about the example included in the previous essay - "everybody loves children" - and how that very simple and easy to understand sentence was "deconstructed"... How can regular people deal with something like that?! I wonder whether there is another strategy to deal with it that doesn't involve a focus on the word themselves. For instance, if the goal is to communicate an idea, we can strive to make it very personal to the audience in such a way that any attempt to deconstruction would come across as offensive.... Or something like that? Any other idea?
A thought, if I may? In the wild, most cheap pomo deconstruction attacks are really intended to shift an edge case from one category to the other. It works like magic.
"You can't define harmless speech, therefore your speech is harmful." That's really stealing an edge case.
"You can't define a woman, therefore TWAW." That's really foisting an edge case.
WD's three countertactics work, but only if you are intellectually agile and mentally prepared. The defence requires more effort than the attack.
It occurs to me that a far less demanding countertactic would be to simply identify the opposing category and deconstruct it back.
Against attempts to steal an edge case:
"But it's hard to say what is truly harmful. There are many kinds of speech that cause discomfort, but are not harmful. For example, when a doctor tells you that you need a painful surgical procedure..."
Against attempts to foist an edge case:
"There are lots of kinds of men who don't meet the cultural expectations of manhood, and yet are men. There are even men, especially historically, who have internalised, e.g., homophobia and don't think they are 'real men', and yet by modern standards would be called men."
I'm sure there are already well worn terms for all this?
"In all of this our goal is to be so clear in our meaning that when we release our communications into the world the meaning of those communications will hold together in spite of the attempts of our opponents to deconstruct them."
That is easier said than done. It is rare for something to be open to only one interpretation. I find myself reminded of the quotation from Cardinal Richelieu who apparently declared that given 6 lines written by the most honourable of men, he could find enough in them to hang him.
Whilst I agree clarity can help, I think it does so by making it obvious what the deconstructionist is doing, or at least more obvious than if you'd used less clear language. Maybe exposing the deconstruction for what it is should be the aim in responding to such an attack?
This is very interesting, but some examples of typical deconstruction attempts and responses that work would be helpful.
The problem begins with calling deconstruction a philosophy which basically translates as "love or seeking of wisdom". Deconstructionist do not seek wisdom nor do they state achieving a greater sense of it as their goal. I don't want to come across as pedantic--you do need some word and despite its flaws well, why not "philosophy"?--but it does set up some potential failures. The rest of the essay suggests that those wanting to respond effectively to deconstructionists should take extra care to scrub their faces, keep their noses clean, and pre-filter every spoken or written word with a good measure of tone policing (funny how that doesn't work the other way). I'd like to think that you're right, but my sense deep down is that these noble efforts won't move the needle of the futility meter very much if at all.
Despite this, I am not a cynic although the time frame for my optimism almost certainly exceeds the remainder of my earthly life. Look at the great job that WD has done documenting the rise of deconstructionism. That project has taken at least fifty years if not more, and you almost have to admire the tenacity and self-discipline that has resulted in the broad institutional captures that they have now achieved. It should be a lesson for anyone who dreams of untangling the tentacles of this hydra. It won't be undone with debate tricks or by fine men and women who talk and dress nice. What it will take is a long-term effort, starting at ground zero, because fifty years of passivity and neglect have put us there. It will require a positive philosophy (this time using the word properly) that focuses on what we should believe rather than what we should reject. And, it has to be aimed at younger people, particularly those who have been thoroughly soused in deconstructionism and its fruits, who will eventually get the sinking feeling that they have been defrauded. Pleasing the aesthetics of boomers like me is a waste of time.
Thanks for the explanation; I was really looking for it after all the other essays explaining deconstruction in detail. While I follow the logic of the recommendation, I think that the challenge of not leaving any door (or window) open to potential deconstructions is almost insurmountable. I think about the example included in the previous essay - "everybody loves children" - and how that very simple and easy to understand sentence was "deconstructed"... How can regular people deal with something like that?! I wonder whether there is another strategy to deal with it that doesn't involve a focus on the word themselves. For instance, if the goal is to communicate an idea, we can strive to make it very personal to the audience in such a way that any attempt to deconstruction would come across as offensive.... Or something like that? Any other idea?
A thought, if I may? In the wild, most cheap pomo deconstruction attacks are really intended to shift an edge case from one category to the other. It works like magic.
"You can't define harmless speech, therefore your speech is harmful." That's really stealing an edge case.
"You can't define a woman, therefore TWAW." That's really foisting an edge case.
WD's three countertactics work, but only if you are intellectually agile and mentally prepared. The defence requires more effort than the attack.
It occurs to me that a far less demanding countertactic would be to simply identify the opposing category and deconstruct it back.
Against attempts to steal an edge case:
"But it's hard to say what is truly harmful. There are many kinds of speech that cause discomfort, but are not harmful. For example, when a doctor tells you that you need a painful surgical procedure..."
Against attempts to foist an edge case:
"There are lots of kinds of men who don't meet the cultural expectations of manhood, and yet are men. There are even men, especially historically, who have internalised, e.g., homophobia and don't think they are 'real men', and yet by modern standards would be called men."
I'm sure there are already well worn terms for all this?
"In all of this our goal is to be so clear in our meaning that when we release our communications into the world the meaning of those communications will hold together in spite of the attempts of our opponents to deconstruct them."
That is easier said than done. It is rare for something to be open to only one interpretation. I find myself reminded of the quotation from Cardinal Richelieu who apparently declared that given 6 lines written by the most honourable of men, he could find enough in them to hang him.
Whilst I agree clarity can help, I think it does so by making it obvious what the deconstructionist is doing, or at least more obvious than if you'd used less clear language. Maybe exposing the deconstruction for what it is should be the aim in responding to such an attack?