ABSTRACT
As binary-polarization technique is the favourite technique of Structuralism, so deconstruction is the favourite technique of Poststructuralism. Deep down, the two techniques have a great deal in common; but we must first reckon with their more obvious difference. Above all, we must observe that deconstruction does not claim for its interpretations the same ontological status as binary-polarization technique. The interpretations of Lévi-Strauss and Barthes supposedly correspond to something that actually exists in the object under study: a taxonomic system in the tribal Unconscious or a myth in the mind of the modern Western consumer. Like all scientists, Lévi-Strauss and Barthes claim to unearth the motivating realities which lie behind surface phenomena. But the deconstructors are Poststructuralists who have cast aside the scientific role. They are not looking for what actually exists in the object of study-but for what that object can be made to produce under the general influence of language. Their interpretations develop onwards and outwards, deliberately leaving behind the original evidence. This is the logical consummation of the Superstructuralist position; and it renders irrelevant that form of objection which I levelled against Lévi-Strauss and Barthes. The deconstructors are not likely to be troubled over complaints that they lose contact with ‘the facts’ or that their technique is ‘mere’ verbal process. As Poststructuralists, they propose for themselves a different kind of goal, beyond objectivist notions of truth altogether.
