Does anyone still read this stuff?
So where does that kind of political conflict leave us? And where does it leave poststructuralism? There are no easy answers here: these theories have some serious pros and cons. In fact, most theorists who call themselves deconstructionists and poststructuralists today have learned to sift through the tradition for the biggest and best nuggets while letting the other stuff go.
Or, to put it another way: many thinkers have chosen to take what's politically useful from deconstruction and poststructuralism, and to leave the rest behind.
When your lit prof slowly "unpacks" a text, that's these guys at work. And when you encounter critics who use literary texts as entryways into much broader discussions about discourse and culture, there's a good chance they're working with Derrida's and Foucault's tools in their utility belts. Poststructuralism even inspired a new field that probably exists on your campus now: cultural studies!
So the next time someone rolls their eyes when you say the word "Derrida," know that they're deconstructing that dude even as they scoff at deconstruction. And then you can roll your eyes back.