Since Plato, "Logocentrists" have considered meaning to emanate from some logos or original source that is pure and undefiled. So, for instance, if one wanted to understand Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, it was thought that he could, ideally, with enough background study, close reading, empathy, etc., arrive at the undefiled and original understanding of the work that Jane Austen possessed as she wrote it and sent it out into the world. Deconstructionists deny we can ever arrive at or even approximate to such an understanding. They reject the idea of knowing Jane Austen and claim we can only know the text and even the text can't be understood "objectively" since its meaning changes according to whoever is handling or reading it. There is no original construction to be had. So deconstructionists spend their time disabusing the rest of us of the notion that we objectively know any text, event, person or thing. Everything is perspectival and malleable.
This is a revolution in Western thought. Historically, examples of the rejected Logos would include:
In a 1982 article I just stumbled on tonight, "Heidegger is no Hero", Ivan Strenski points out that the Nazis disappointed Heidegger, de Man and others like him mainly because they were not as “spiritual” as some followers had believed them to be. They settled down to administration and forsook the spiritual revolution Heidegger seemed to have welcomed in 1933.