Deconstruction Theory

In his speech yesterday, Putin expressed the anti-nationalist worldview perfectly. I first heard it in North American academia in the late 1990s. I was young and was completely incapable of seeing how this way of thinking could lead to bad things.

Here’s how it goes. Nations were artificially created. They are ‘imagined communities.’ Borders were arbitrarily drawn. There’s nothing (or very little) natural about them. So far, so good, especially since it’s all true.

It’s the next step that gets dicey. If the nation (the gender, the race, the family) is simply a construct, it can be dismantled. More than that, it should be dismantled because it wasn’t chosen by me. It’s an imposition, a violation of my free will. So let’s deconstruct it. First, theorically, and then practically. Today we are experiencing the practical stage of the theory developed in the 1980s and popularized in the 1990s.

The birth, the development, the popularization and the praxis of this theory neatly coincide with the introduction of neoliberalism. It’s not a coincidence. Deconstruction theory is the battering ram of neoliberalism.

The theory became so dominant that it entered our consciousness as a manifestation of common sense. Not every ideology is born of economic necessity. But this one was.

Our biggest problem is that we approach this deconstructionist neoliberal worldview as blind people who are palpating an elephant. We see little bits but often miss the whole. We forget how it was born, how it gestated, and how it was unleashed into the world.

I started this post with Putin but I hope you understand that it’s not about him. He’s rolling out a little bit of the elephant because it’s convenient. But we are all being smothered by this beast because we missed the moment when it was still a cute little elephant baby. I’m not saying it’s hopeless but I do believe that without seeing the entire extent of the problem we won’t be able to do anything about it.

7 thoughts on “Deconstruction Theory

  1. ‘Not every ideology is born of economic necessity. But this one was.’

    Could you into more detail on that? My impression was always that it was born of greed rather than economic necessity. And mainly on the polars of the spectrum, on one side there is the social system abuse and the art of tax avoidance on the other, though tax avoidance is much bigger of a problem.


  2. “There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, โ€œI donโ€™t see the use of this; let us clear it away.โ€ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: โ€œIf you donโ€™t see the use of it, I certainly wonโ€™t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.โ€ -GK Chesterton

    Also a blog post I found a while ago that expounds on it more

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It’s an anti-democratic, anti-government theory, a preparation for the tyranny of the corporations which will “transcend” nations, etc. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Chomsky is good on all of this…talks in YouTube and books…and Naomi Klein SHOCK DOCTRINE…you probably know…๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.