1.A> Notice what a particular text or school of  thought takes to be natural, normal, self-evident, originary, immediately apparent, or worthy of pursuit or emulation:

           group x (whites, middle class, Americans, etc.)
           is "inherently virtuous"
           · group x (darker skinned people, youths, etc.) is
           "natural and spontaneous"
           · men are naturally x (rational, aggressive,
           desirous of women, etc.)
           · women are naturally x (nurturing, connected to
           the earth, etc.)
           · "everybody knows that" x is true
           · everybody wants x, it is natural to want x, x is
           an inherent trait of human nature
 

1.B> Notice those places where a text is most insistent that there is a firm and fast distinction between two things:

           · men and women, black and white, straight and
           gay, subject and object
           · x precedes y (text: interpretation, Adam: Eve,
           heterosexuality: homosexuality)
           · x is more natural than y (female: male,
           heterosexuality: homosexuality)
           · y is derivative of x or a perversion of x
           (Milton's Satan: Christ, "normal" sex: fetishes,
           criticism: fiction)
           · y has a parasitic relation to x (fiction: truth,
           criticism: fiction, interpretation: text)
           · x is original and y is imitative (the book: the
           movie, life: heaven)
           · y is a manifestation or effect of x (culture:
           economics, surface: deep structure, gender:
           anatomy, practice: theory).
           · y is an exception or special case and x is the
           rule
 

2.A > Show how something represented as primary, complete & originary is derived, composite, and/or an effect of something else.

           · Because writers always write in relation to
           prior writers they learn about in school, fiction
           is a result of criticism. It depends on criticism,
           and is derived from criticism.
           · Our sense of Winnie the Pooh when we read
           books about him is shaped by our memories of
           the movies. The voices we hear when we read
           are the movie voices, and the "original" text is
           partially an effect of the movie.
           · Because consciousness is actually
           "self-consciousness," (i.e. a self and a
           consciousness) consciousness is always already
           divided, never simply present to itself.

2.B> Show how something represented as completely different from something else only exists by virtue of defining itself against that something else. In other words, show how it depends on that thing.
       For example:

           Mulder and Scully do not so much pursue "the
           Truth" as uncover errors. If they ever find the
           whole truth, the show will end.
           Heterosexual only makes sense when opposed to
           homosexual. Without homosexuals, there would
           be no heterosexuals.
           Truth depends on error. Without the concept of
           error, truth does not exist.

2.C> Show how something represented as normal is a special case.

           · "Truth" is a story that people find especially
           convincing.
           · "Normal" sexual reproduction is the result of
           several components that, taken alone, would be
           called perversions. Thus normal sex is in fact a
           specialized perversion.
           · Whiteness is an ethnicity that disguises the fact
           it's an ethnicity.

       In general, as Jonathan Culler puts it, deconstruction works "within an opposition," but "upsets [its] hierarchy by producing an exchange of properties." This disrupts not only the hierarchy, but the opposition itself.

       Note how this is different than simply reversing an opposition. For example consider these reversals of a culturally prevalent opposition:

           · The Pooh movies are better than the books
           (reverses the usual assumption that the book is
           better & more original than the movie).
           · the Joker is cooler than Batman (reverses
           notion of the hero).
           · women are smarter than men (reverses
           chauvinistic "common knowledge").
           · Native Americans are more heroic than
           cowboys (reverses the Western).

       Reversal is a valuable move, but deconstruction is after bigger game, because it "deconstructs" the underlying hierarchy.   For example:

           · Our sense of Pooh books is derived from the
           movies,
           · Batman is a special kind of villain called a
           vigilante
           · Men's sense of their intelligence is dependent
           on a belief that women are bimbos
           · "Cowboy heroism" cannot exist without "bad
           Indians."

       Notice how these statements cripple the underlying hierarchy by "deconstructing" the opposition that it depends on. Deconstruction doesn't simply reverse the opposition, nor does it destroy it. Instead it demonstrates its inherent instability. It takes it apart from within, and without putting some new, more stable opposition in its place. If you want to really mess with something, deconstruct it.

                 A Note On Practicalities

       In Stanley's Fish's words, we can deconstruct anything in theory, but not in everyday practice. The fact that in principle we can deconstruct anything doesn't mean that we can deconstruct everything, all the time, and still communicate. We can, however, deconstruct things that annoy us, point out where a text already deconstructs an opposition, focus on oppositions authors and poets try (often with difficulty) to keep intact, and gain insight into how our own sense of ourselves (as well as the way the culture tries to interpret us) depends on oppositions that can be deconstructed.
 

http://www.sou.edu/English/Hedges/Sodashop/RCenter/Theory/Howto/decon.htm