For me, coming into arch from a lit-theory program heavy on social- and linguistic-constructionivist theories, post-structuralism, decon, etc., my first step was Stan Allen's Points+Lines, specifically the essay Infrastructural Urbanism. I'm not saying it's the greatest book on architecture, so would-be critics can back off now ... I'm just saying that it layed out an argument against the trappings of both modernism and post-modernism that made a lot of sense to me at the time.

I don't know if you can be a recovered post modernist, but you can always be a BETTER post modernist. Try teaching him to have a sense of humor, and it'll all come out better. I know this sounds flippant, but I'm actually serious.

i'm a past modernist. i really wish that definitions found in literary criticism would quit be (mis)interupted by architects. put the delueze down and just develop your craft
...

ie folding a building aint what deleuze was talkin about when he was talkin about the fold. okay...