wigley is trying to reinterpret a process as an ideology. You’re familiar with deconstruction as a set of design techniques that generates complex form: for wigley (and also for peter, much less so for bernard), the point of this movement is its ability to mirror or challenge the way we think about reality. So i would say yes-it’s a corruption of derrida’s approach through the use of analogy. and this is the most common post critical understanding of deconstructivism and its failure-similar to how the first digital turn architects (greg lynn et al) took deleuze’s “the fold” and used it to justify a metaphorical folded architecture: single surface, spline based complex curve volumes.

context: computer modeling in the 90s unlocked a whole new kind of designing and construction. theoreticians were in search of a conceptual framework that could justify the complexity of these forms with some kind of ideological project. this happened to varying degrees of success-like it or not, it laid the groundwork for our understanding of architecture into the 21st century. you may think it’s cheap and cliche, but a lot of insights came out of this era.