Deconstruction's Last Word? These political debates have suggested that deconstruction, if it's to have an ethical commitment, must accept the necessity of grounded values which might well be un-deconstructable. That's been a major question for deconstruction in recent years. There's much at stake in this, and in the fortunes and adventures of deconstruction in general. Put to use in wider fields, as Derrida has done, it's more than a "play with language", even though it insists that politics, ethics, economics, and law cannot neglect the play of language. So what ot the futures for deconstruction'? The death of deconstruction has been pronounced many times. It's a "passing fashion", a "momentary fad", it's "run out of steam", etc - a discourse similar to the funeral incantations around the death of Marxism, and perhaps just as misplaced. To dismiss deconstruction in such ways is to reject too hastily the logic, however unfamiliar, of Derrida's writing. After all, deconstruction might always be at work. And that means that other movements, even if critical of deconstruction, will have to make themselves in fields already inhabited by it

170