Deconstruction and the Institution of Occupation

To define deconstruction, one must understand the relationship between its genesis and the historical context that engendered its space. Structuralism dominated French philosophical discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, and deeply permeated the studies of literary theory, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, among other fields (Culler, 2008). However, toward the latter end of the 1960s, there was a radical departure from and rejection of structuralism, specifically of its core beliefs. This movement, labeled post-structuralism, critiqued the unidirectional, fixed relationship of the signifier and signified, and a notion of absolute/universal truths (Sarup, 1993). Whereas structuralism views language as shaping world (perception and interaction) and de-emphasizing the subject’s autonomy, post-structuralists assert that culture and history ultimately influence how knowledge is produced; they identify the various and intersecting determinants that affect choice. Prominent scholars such as Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jürgen Habermas, and Jacques Derrida have been associated with post-structuralism (Harrison, 2006). It is important to note that many of these scholars have rejected the label disassociating the movement into pre- and post-epochs. Further, post-structuralism as a movement is not widely recognized in Europe but rather an arbitrary label assigned by American academics (Wood & Bernasconi, 1988).