In a series of articles critical of aspects of the idea of translanguaging, MacSwan (e.g. 2022) has suggested that "deconstructivism" has derailed the translingual project. This paper draws attention to a number of weaknesses in this argument that are important for taking critical questions about language seriously. The term deconstructivism operates more as a derogatory label than a description of a theoretical stance, an appeal to popular notions about the postmodern rather than to intellectual debate about modes of inquiry. The notion of deconstruction itself is a common term referring to the need to pull structures apart before reassembling them, as suggested by deconstructivism in architecture (to describe the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, for example). Ontological curiosity about languages also has a long history and is an important step before reconstruction, reinvention, or reconstitution. This paper makes a case for "critical engagement," an argument for intellectual care when dealing with critical theory, and "critical resistance," the question of whether contemporary language matters of concern are better served by traditional or current sociolinguistic frameworks.