{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03199174406604747, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Discipline of Deconstruction

sustained summary and critique of Derrida and re­ lated thinkers, a critique that Nealon seriously mis­ represents. Nealon suggests that this passage from Culler rep­ resents deconstruction as it is taught in theory semi­ nars: “In undoing the oppositions on which it relies and between which it urges the reader to choose, the text places the [deconstructive] reader in an impossible situation that cannot end in triumph but only in an outcome already deemed inappropriate: an unwar­ ranted choice or a failure to choose” (Nealon’s inter­ polation). Only in the endnote do we learn that Culler is writing here not about Derrida at all but about Paul de Man. Nealon proceeds to debunk this approach, rightly, as representing only the first step of a decon­ struction. He then cites the following passage from Derrida’s Margins of Philosophy, a passage that de­ lineates the second, and crucial, move, of displacement and reinscription: