Shifting, slipping, sliding, and playing—all things deconstructionists say that language “does.” It almost sounds like a kid on a playground. And, perhaps some consider deconstruction to be taken as seriously as a child at play and not a scholar at work. Admittedly, I had a tough time with deconstruction at first and had a hard time understanding the value. But deconstruction surprised me and I found myself reversing my position.

I realized that when approaching a text I already often look for the gaps. These gaps help to understand what assumptions are inherently represented in and by the text as well as what is privileged. To me, these assumptions and binaries illuminate a deeper understanding of the author’s argument and the beliefs and values that are perpetuated or repeated in the text. But I want to be clear, I do not think it is a productive task to merely rip apart the text, but rather, I think deconstruction allows one to “read” the text even more nimbly.

To repeat the well-known metaphor, this perspective is another valuable tool for my toolbox. Maybe this tempered down version of deconstruction that I am thinking about is not in fact actually deconstruction. But I think a way to see the dominant readings and to see where the text undermines itself is useful—even if it is only used as a way to check one’s interpretation against the text or against other’s readings. Lastly, an understanding of deconstruction furthers one’s knowledge of how language operates. This mindfulness allows a writer to consider how to navigate the inevitable gaps that will arise out of the indeterminacy of language—which might just make the writing even better (if the writer does not become paralyzed by the potential unraveling of meaning that might be produced in her work).

Although I still have some issues with deconstruction, I am more comfortable with it in moderation as a way to act as an intervention against norms and as a way to read a text creatively.