Today feels like a good day to take on deconstruction and even the whole post-modern view of the world. It is a widespread view, especially in the humanities and fine arts departments of the universities in this early part of the twenty-first century.

Deconstruction has its uses. It can make us see how a work of art or an argument - even in one of the social sciences - is already biased even before we begin to read, watch, study, or listen to it. It is biased by the terms and grammar that the maker of that work chooses to use to express herself or himself. She or he will pick terms that in the end lead by what appears to be logic to the conclusions that favor and support her/his worldview. We tend to see the world in terms that allow us to keep the privileges that brought us to the point where we did the writing, filming, painting, or composing in the first place.

There is some strong logic behind this view. Deconstruction can show us where the biases in a work of art or an argument lie and can help us to see past those biases. But to what? What are we supposed to see our way clearly to?






Implicit in any deconstruction of anything is the view that the deconstructing process is a worthy one to pursue. Implicit in any critique of a work of art or an argument are hidden axioms that legitimize the sub-culture of the deconstructors.

Most troubling of all, there lie hidden in all of these deconstructions and their fans, moral codes that judge some activities to be worthy of attention and some others not. There is a lot of world out there, even if we just look at the the humanly constructed parts, and we can't give our attention to more than a tiny portion of it. So what should we choose to attend to and why? These are the questions that the subtlest of the post-moderns don't answer. This is, I think, because they know that their positions are just as biased as anyone else's.

If we are to choose among this caccophony of billions of human voices for the ones that should be running the big institutions of our global village, then we are going to have to define a basis for choosing among them. That is all a moral code really is. And if we are going to define one, then we are going to have to give a rationale for it. It does not stand by the fiat decree of a few who claim they get to be in charge because they are capable of more subtle styles of thought that the rest of us. My response is always, "Says who?" And so we come back to the fundamental debate of our time. What should be in the moral code that will enable our whole species to survive? Why do you think so?

And let me reiterate one other major point: we must make this choice. We can't abstain from choosing on this matter. The alternative is chaos. The individual in this state deteriorates into catatonia. The global village deteriorates into anarchy. Then, the bullies get to have their way. They are all that is left that seems to have any kind of a will to do something. Nietzsche's vision, and never forget that it destroyed him. We have seen what that looks like. Don't want to go there again.

What are right and wrong? Why do you say so?

In the shadow of the mushroom cloud, nevertheless, have a nice day.