the difference between a parody and a satire is that a parody does not have to have an underlying thesis, while a satire does not have to be particularly funny.
the categories are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean they're synonymous.
a parody that has nothing in it of satire is relatively unlikely to qualify as a deconstruction, due to not containing enough intellectual meat, but exceptions certainly exist. particularly when the thing being parodied is literary in nature.
meanwhile not all satires are deconstructions, because you can satirize things like 'the recent political drama' in ways that don't really involve deconstruction per se. (a lot of the time you will do this via parody.)
the distinctive element of a deconstruction is that it arises within the context of interpreting things structurally. this is a very common intellectual framework nowadays so this distinction can get lost, but the shift away from the platonic view, where any given sort of thing was assumed to have a single true self that you were trying to find or reach or understand, rather than arising through the interaction of contextual forces, was a big deal when it was happening, and opened a lot of new doors in terms of how to conceptualize...everything, but especially everything we now categorize as a 'social construct.'
which is why there's a sort of assumption that to 'deconstruct' something is necessarily to approach it in an intellectually complex or rewarding way.
not true. can have stupid deconstruction that technically qualifies. arguably can even have trite one. (can also just say something is a deconstruction when it isn't but that's another issue lol.)
this is because in the context of literature and related art forms this assumption disappears up its own ass fairly quickly, since writing about writing is one of the oldest tricks in the book. that doesn't mean you can't deconstruct a genre, or convention within a genre, etc, in an interesting and philosophically profitable way. just that being metatextual doesn't actually guarantee you have anything of value to say, either.
which is why saying you're doing a deconstruction while actually just engaging in sophistry and light satire is really easy, and thus attractive to people trying to look and feel intellectual without having to try too hard.
meanwhile literary deconstructions don't have to be remotely like either satire or parody, because the only thing they actually have to be doing is engaging directly with the structural assumptions of a genre in a way that draws out something about their constructed nature and. does something with that. basically.
it's just easiest to make this engaging to an audience (especially one already at least mildly accustomed to thinking in structural terms and thus less impressed by it) in the parody/satire/subversion format, so they tend to occur together and thus get balled up together a lot.
and so people who want to sound intellectual increasingly say 'deconstruction' and 'subversion' where they only very dubiously apply.
so...yeah, none of these are mutually incompatible, and you can stack them all at once but also find them separately, because they're talking about different things.
that was way more than three minutes let me go again.
andulkaphoto
janainaart
theartofmadeline
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
turnnoffyourmind
areudirty
