Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly be called “phenomenological” and “structural” approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was precisely the false problem, and the “depth” of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?
What does “deconstructive” mean?
See “How to Deconstruct Almost Anything”—an engineer’s trip report into postmodernist studies. I enjoyed it a lot.
This is an interesting link—I will include it among my hypotheses when considering deconstruction in the future.
“deconstructive” means “concerned with deconstruction”.
“deconstruction” is the act-noun form of “deconstruct”.
What does “deconstructive” mean if “deconstruct” is tabooed?
Nothing.
From Wikipedia:
what
This should make things clearer—via Wikipedia