Why did critics object to the terminology used by Paul de Man and other deconstructionists?

Critics of Paul de Man and other deconstructionists frequently objected to their terminology, dismissing it as empty, opaque jargon or "obscurantist wordplay".12

Many philosophers, particularly those within the Anglo-American tradition, argued that when the claims made by deconstructionists were intelligible, they were often perceived as either trivial or false. Beyond these linguistic concerns, the movement faced broader academic opposition:13

• Obscurity and Nihilism: Critics frequently characterized deconstruction as a nihilistic endorsement of radical epistemic relativism and an anti-rationalist attack on serious philosophical inquiry.13
• Lack of Substance: Opponents argued that the terminology served to disguise the lack of clear, direct meaning, with some suggesting that the movement’s major claims lacked substantive intellectual value.123
• Political and Historical Concerns: Deconstruction was often accused of being ahistorical and apolitical, leading to skepticism about its utility in addressing real-world social or historical contexts.1

While deconstructionists defended their specialized language as a necessary technical vocabulary for their discipline, the controversy persisted, framing the movement as a polarizing force in 20th-century literary theory and philosophy.23