Deconstruction does not show that all texts are
meaningless, but rather that they are overflowing with multiple and
often conflicting meanings. Similarly, deconstruction does not
claim that concepts have no boundaries, but that their boundaries
can be parsed in many different ways as they are inserted into new
contexts of judgment. Although people use deconstructive
analyses to show that particular distinctions and arguments lack
normative coherence, deconstruction does not show that all legal
distinctions are incoherent. Deconstructive arguments do not
necessarily destroy conceptual oppositions or conceptual
distinctions. Rather, they tend to show that conceptual oppositions
can be reinterpreted as a form of nested opposition .
A nested opposition is an opposition in which the two terms bear a
relationship of conceptual dependence or similarity as well as
conceptual difference or distinction. Deconstructive analysis
attempts to explore how this similarity or this difference is
suppressed or overlooked. Hence deconstructive analysis often
emphasizes the importance of context in judgment, and the many
changes in meaning that accompany changes in contexts of
judgment.
