These deconstructionists may have some insights, but I don't believe they have anything to say that couldn't be reduced to understandable language, just as C. W. Mills reduced Parsons to simple English. When you simplify it, it seems sensible enough but not particularly profound or interesting. I suspect the fancy language is largely a smokescreen to disguise the banality of the ideas. It is a shame that sociology is stuck with this stuff. We ought to leave it to the Marxist philosophers, who should be better trained for it.
People expect philosophers to spend their time juggling obtuse concepts.
Sociologists would be more effective studying the world, writing about it intelligibly, and helping to change it. People ought to wait until they are retired and too old to get out of the house to rattle on about such things. Otherwise, Irving Horowitz and others may be proven right when they point to the self- destruction of sociology. I have read a book of Einstein's sociological writings, and they are not particularly insightful, although well intentioned and expressing good values. He had no genius for social analysis, but enough common sense to abandon his absolute pacifism when he learned what Hitler was up to.