Do followers of Lyotard consider modernism deconstructive? I ask only because I've read that
Furthermore, says Lyotard, a work can become modern only if it is
first postmodern, for postmodernism is not modernism at its end but in
its nascent state, that is, at the moment it attempts to present the
unpresentable, “and this state is constant” (Lyotard 1984 , 79).
The postmodern, then, is a repetition of the modern as the “new,” and
this means the ever-new demand for another repetition.
And I wonder what that has got to with 'deconstruction'?
The point he is making is analogous to this: Once you have the notion of culture, it means you are already multicultural. Prior to the concept of culture, there is yourself, and the barbarians or others. Mihima speaks of the Americans twice forcing the Japanese to look at themselves in the American mirror. The Japanese ceased to be a "mono-culture" and became one culture among many. This effects also their past, or, their current view of their history. Now it is grasped that history can be understood under a new mirror. The deconstruction of it is also gleamed in the past. It is now understood that this re-writing was always happening. It has simply come to more clear consciousness.