I find this "deadline" concept problematic

I believe that the gratuitous inclusion of Derrida in my thesis entitles me to at least a few moments of postmodern primadonna-dom.

And right now, that means: Social Studies thesis deadline, watch yourself, because I'm about to deconstruct your ass.

First of all, the concept of a "deadline" suggests a clear-cut distinction between two points in time: the "before," when it is acceptable to turn something in, and the "after," when it is not. Of course, one might question from whose perspective "acceptability" is determined; how one draws a (dead)line in time--which is infinitely reducible AND culturally determined (what is 5:oopm in a society where clocks do not exist? Is your 5:00pm somehow equivalent to the universal, ideal, absolute 5:00pm?); how one defines the "completion" and "turning in" of the assignment (when every thing that can be said has been said? when it leaves not questions unanswered? when the question--as if one could isolate and bound a single question--that you ask explicitly has been answered? when the process of altering--but all statements change with context, which in turn constantly evolves--ceases to occur?); and finally (and perhaps most obviously), how we account for and extract a clear meaning from the inherently dynamic and socially determined relation between "deadline" as a signifier and this presumably obvious referent, some "real world," clear-cut, "January 2nd, 2007" from which you, dear Social Studies, presume to pronounce my grade as Sat/Unsat, either/or, one/not the other.

Well, if you want to snub your nose at the last half century of literary, social, and political philosophy and tie yourself blindly to the illusions of essentialism, then be my guest.

But I won't have it. I will not turn my eyes from the dynamic multiplicity of meanings that "deadline: January 2nd, 2007" carries.

In other words, you can look forward to my 1st chapter sometime this week.