Andrew Benjamin, in this interview with Stuart Barnett in the Connecticut Review (Spring 1997), responds to a question about the role of deconstruction in British philosophy as follows:

The difficulty with the role of deconstruction within the British scene is that it's viewed as suspiciously by the establishment as it is by the so-called anti-establishment. The establishment of the right and the establishment of the left are both equally suspicious of this form of philosophical activity. Even journals such as Radical Philosophy are just as dismissive of French philosophy--say, Lyotard and Derrida--as the analytic journals. Thus one is squeezed by the two prongs of the establishment. Now I say that as an Australian living in Britain. I'm sure the British themselves don't see it that way. They see it in ways that have to do with the role which a conception of national identity--even though it's not announced as such--assumes within the philosophical.

Benjamin says that the marginalized takes place through a nationalist discourse:

a discourse of the nation that is not recognized as such. And so there is this residual move back to Britishness on both the left and right. Though they don't realize that's what they're doing. They drive it out by labeling it as French, or labeling it as something else. And then they have nothing to do with it because it's other. What that means also is--again, in the British context--that it's very difficult to do original philosophical work that has its basis in deconstruction or the European orientation. Because both ends of the tradition the two prongs of that tradition remain uninterested in that. They remain interested in their own traditions.

So the reception and practice deconstruction in Britain and Australia has not transformed the British or Australian philosophical tradition. To avoid becoming ghettozed it must become international.