DECONSTRUCTION

There is something really offensive about The Times’ printing an account of deconstruction by Jack Smith, who admits to being “ignorant,” and even “frightened” by it (Feb. 11). If he doesn’t understand deconstructionist theory, then why does he proceed to write about it? Just about everything he says is, indeed, meaningless (which is not, by the way, the same as ambiguous). Worst of all, his proud display of ignorance is packaged in his usual annoying, self-congratulatory style. He calls deconstruction “an esoteric critical methodology that seems to undermine my temple and my reason for being.” So, his reason for being is to understand everything readily, at face value, without ambivalence? And he’s criticizing a scholarly movement?

I admit that deconstructionist theory can be difficult to grasp, but an article that makes fun of it by a person who does not understand it does nothing to further anyone’s knowledge and, in fact, belittles anyone who desires to really learn, unlike Smith, who is just looking for another excuse to show his ability to turn any topic into a cutesy Sunday magazine piece.

KATIE DUNIGAN HUGHES

La Jolla