To read deconstructively is to read otherwise - not in opposition to the text, but within its logic, attending to what it cannot quite contain, what it must repress to seem coherent. The goal is not to uncover a “hidden meaning” or impose a new interpretation, but to trace how the text undoes itself, often at the very points where it tries to be most certain.
Deconstruction is not a method, but it is not without method either. It involves a certain sensibility - a disposition toward inconsistency, instability, and excess in language. Reading deconstructively means watching a text perform more than it means to, even as it tries to assure you of what it means.
Step One: The First Reading – Structure and Argument
Begin by reading the text in the way it seems to ask to be read. Identify its explicit claims, its central oppositions, and the hierarchies it presupposes. This is what Derrida calls the “first reading” - a careful reconstruction of the text’s surface logic.
Ask:
-
What is the main argument?
-
What oppositions structure the text (e.g., truth/error, speech/writing, nature/culture)?
-
Which terms or concepts are treated as stable, authoritative, or original?
This step requires generosity and rigor. You are not looking for errors. You are identifying how the text organizes its thought - how it holds itself together.
Step Two: The Second Reading – Fault Lines and Tensions
Now return to the text with fresh eyes. Look for inconsistencies, slippages, or excesses - moments when the language carries more than the argument accounts for, or contradicts its own claims.
Focus especially on:
-
Undecidables: concepts that the text cannot define without contradiction (e.g., “justice,” “origin,” “truth”).
-
Supplements: elements that seem to be external but are in fact necessary to the text’s coherence.
-
Margins and metaphors: peripheral or rhetorical elements that disrupt the logical structure.
Ask:
-
Does the text depend on what it excludes?
-
Are the foundational concepts (e.g., presence, identity) stable, or do they collapse under scrutiny?
-
Is a binary reversed or undermined by the text’s own logic?
This is not about finding contradictions for their own sake. It is about showing how the internal logic of the text produces effects it cannot control.
Example: Deconstructing “Nature” in a Philosophical Text
Imagine a text that claims humans are naturally rational and that reason distinguishes us from animals. In the first reading, you note that “reason” is aligned with humanity, culture, and autonomy, while “instinct” is linked to nature, animals, and determinism.
In the second reading, you examine the assumptions:
-
How is “reason” defined?
-
Is it possible to define “reason” without referencing “instinct”?
-
Does the text rely on metaphors of animality to describe the failure of reason?
-
Are there examples where humans behave “irrationally,” and how does the text handle that?
What emerges is a kind of dependency: “rationality” only has meaning against a backdrop of “irrationality,” and this boundary is porous. The text may try to maintain a clean line, but its language - and perhaps its examples - undermine that line from within.
The Role of Rhetoric and Style
Deconstruction takes language seriously - not just what a text says, but how it says it. Rhetorical figures, metaphors, tone, and structure are not ornaments; they are sites where meaning is produced and displaced. Often, metaphors carry the philosophical weight of a text—sometimes more than its logic.
To read deconstructively is to ask:
-
What work is the metaphor doing?
-
What assumptions does it conceal?
-
Does it contradict or complicate the argument it supports?
For Derrida, a single metaphor—“foundation,” “mirror,” “voice”—can unravel a philosophical system when we follow its implications rigorously.
Reading with Responsibility
A deconstructive reading is not a free-for-all. It requires fidelity to the text - to its language, its claims, and its complexity. It is an act of close attention, not of casual skepticism. The goal is not to reduce the text to nonsense but to let it speak in ways it did not intend - to listen for what it had to exclude to sound coherent.
This is why Derrida often described his work as both strategic and ethical. It is strategic because it chooses its focus carefully - no reading can destabilize everything at once. It is ethical because it attends to what the text leaves out, marginalizes, or suppresses, and holds that exclusion up to view.
Beginning the Practice
Start small. Choose a paragraph, a sentence, even a single word. Read it once for argument, and again for tension. Ask: What is assumed here? What is at stake? What is excluded, and does it return?
Over time, you’ll develop an ear for slippages - a sensitivity to how language unravels even as it ties itself together. You’ll begin to see that texts are not just containers of meaning, but events of meaning, structured by difference, deferral, and excess.
To read deconstructively is not to master the text - but to let it show you what mastery cannot contain.
