As the extent of philosophical inquiry through the written word was capped and the reins passed off to material experimenters, many cultural philosophers seem trapped in a simulation of academic inquiry, but which is really a black hole vortex in their language games.
They say that the final frontier is the mind and some even suggest that the reason we haven’t encountered aliens is that before we explore the infinite expanse of mostly lifeless space, intelligent life enters the infinite vortex of their minds and thus look in rather than look out.
What is truly left to be inquired about when we look into the distance and see only the void. The games we play are the lives we live and perhaps all we need is someone to twist our minds such that we can see something delightfully new with a little wit and humor.
And maybe that is a life well lived for the technically ungifted.
That revival of the text comes just in right time in a period where for example Scull so severely critics Foucault's Histoire de la Folie.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) Note that the French article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9flexivit%C3%A9_(socio-a... is, obviously, superior as it goes further than the narrow scope of sociology
Philosophy, in particular, shares this problem.
I for example almost agree with the dummy deconstruction on JFK. What I think is missing from postmodern talks is that such an interpretation while possible is strictly below the actual reading of words.
You can theorize about how and why things were said, but claiming to understand the deeper motive for a statement is irrelevant to the truth of the statement.
If what you are doing (and you are honest about it) is trying to reason on what effect such a statement could have on the reader you are actually investigating a real process.
The crucial step (where as far as I can tell many postmodernists fail) is that you must not then claim that your interpretation can replace the statement itself.
All the interpretations in the world do not invalidate the obvious concept of actual truth.
Ok, I was trying to stay polite, but I believe this stance is bullshit. No less than saying that sex is the only human motivator.
I believe that this kind of deconstruction has a role to play in society, as power and power structure exist and are often (partially ) corrupted. But claiming that this is some kind of universal explanation for societal structure is reprehensible.
My comment was trying to find a core of usefulness latent in this.
When then people start claiming that the only reason for hierarchies is power itself it start to degenerate quickly.
Gosh, that were peaceful times in 1993, weren't they? Nowadays they would risk to get into a twitter shitstorm demanding their resignation, firing, and disappearance.
Nowadays, "politically incorrect" really means "socially unacceptable", and what is socially acceptable has shrunk to not include having political opinions outside of your social sphere's.
But I think the modern idea of "politically incorrect" isn't new. McCarthyism, for example, is basically the same thing; they just didn't use the term "politically incorrect" to describe statements which could be construed as Marxist.