Keep in mind that poststructuralism includes a huge group of theories and people. I'll focus on a particular brand of poststructuralism (deconstruction) and a small branch of that as well (Look, I'm speaking as a structuralist.)

Why We Read

Generally speaking, a poststructuralist reads to identify and "dis-assemble" fundamental structures in absolutely anything as a way to identify and critique ideological structures. In this sense poststructuralism is less an interpretive strategy than it is a method of critique. On the other hand, "critique" implies a kind of making sense or interpretation. As Jane Caplan says, "deconstruction is a method of reading that not only exposes the limitations or inconsistencies of any particular set of conceptual oppositions and priorities in a text, but also shows how the text's attempt to maintain this system undermines the very principles of its own operation. In other words, deconstruction is simultaneously a critique of the categories proffered by a text, and an exposé of the text's unacknowledged challenges to its own premises." Deconstruction wants to reveal the ideology of the binaries that govern a text (Who benefits from keeping these terms separate? Who benefits from the present polarity?) and open up new paths, reveal opportunities and possibilities, and offer a new way of perceiving the world. To be even more reductive, a deconstructive reader reads to expose any system as an inherently contradictory system. While the end result of deconstruction is unknowable (one cannot have an agenda in mind), it ultimately provides more opportunities and possibilities because the system that constrained or restricted possibilities is now dismantled or destabilized. Historically, groups traditionally ignored, suppressed, oppressed, and disadvantaged have effectively used deconstruction to question traditional notions of race, class, gender, nationality, etc.

What We Read

As with structuralists, poststructuralists are willing to read anything, for everything is part of a sign system, from literary texts to velvet paintings, from cars to a celebrity's face, from ancient cultures to Madonna. In fact, this ability to move from one system to another is what makes poststructuralism so useful. The theory not only reveals the "constructedness" of everything, but it tends to focus on key binaries whose power and control is most extensive. For example, poststructuralists are preoccupied with binaries that support huge systems: male/female, reason/superstition, reason/religion, truth/myth, speech/writing, science/religion, history/fiction, cause/effect, public/private, rational/irrational, West/East, mind/body, etc. There is always a ripple effect when one set of binaries is destabilized because the terms on each side of the binary are usually linked or associated with each other (i.e. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, blah, blah, blah). Poststructuralists also like to seek out ignored passages, works, and people whose significance ultimately undermines a larger project, for unity and order are only achievable by ignoring something, and deconstruction is interested in what is ignored (i.e. Derrida finds that a rather obscure work by Rousseau is the loose thread that problematizes all of Rousseau's work). In other words, deconstructionists seek out the part ignored by the system to show the limitations of the system itself.

How We Read

The most basic questions are... "How does the text undermine its own philosophy or ideological hierarchy? What are all the possible meanings the text might convey? (You need to reveal the inevitable indeterminacy of the text). Who benefits and who loses when one claims that "X" is commonsensical, natural, or normal?" (You need to show that the claim for the "commonsensical," "natural," or "normal" always privileges a particular ideological affiliation.)

Writing Suggestions:

Part One: Present Apparent Unity

Offer a New Critical or Structuralist reading of your text. Explain the binary oppositions that structure the text or the apparent unity of the text or philosophy. Explain what the text seems to suggest, critique, challenge, reinforce, celebrate, or disparage. Use those verbs! You want to convey a temporary or apparent sense of order, unity, and closure.

Part Two: Read Against the Grain/Multiply Meanings

Option One: Poststructuralist Critique: Undoing the Knot/Recognizing Disunity

Once you have read with the grain in part one, you can now read against the grain by performing the basic deconstructive strategy which requires you to critique the stability of those binary pairs, hierarchies, and ideological projects you mapped in part one. As I asked above, "How does the text undermine its own philosophy or ideological hierarchy? What are all the possible meanings the text might convey? In other words, you need to problematize the either/or structure of the oppositions. You can reverse the polarity, demonstrating that the text itself is ironic in that it really privileges what it attempts to disparage, but you need to go on to show that the two terms "contaminate" each other, that the terms have no permanent boundaries, that they are ultimately undecidable and indeterminate. You are not merely trying to show paradox or irony as a New Critic would. A key difference between New Criticism and deconstruction is that New Critics try to harmonize apparent contradictions, paradoxes, and ambiguites while deconstructionists try to make readers aware of the inability to provide closure and unity or resolve ambiguity. Again, unity is only possible if someone ignores or represses something, and what is ignored or repressed always reveals ideological foundations or assumptions.

As Peter Barry points out, "the deconstructive reading, then, aims to produce disunity, to show that what had looked like unity and coherency actually contains contradictions and conflicts which the text cannot stabilize and contain" (77). Or as Barbara Johnson claims, "deconstruction is the careful teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text itself." My favorite example of this strategy is Robert Scholes' first chapter, "The English Apparatus," in Textual Power. Scholes performs exactly what it means to identify and then problematize the binaries literature/non-literature, production/consumption, and real world/academy. The "undoing" of those binaries begins on page 8 in Textual Power.

Option Two:

Poststructuralist Interpretation: Make Sense of Deconstructive Texts

Many texts blur the boundary of critical texts in that some "literary" texts use deconstructive strategies to subvert systems, binary thinking, hierarchies, key concepts, etc. These texts are often perceived as "unreadable," "weird," "contradictory and incoherent," or "postmodern." These texts are engaged in "deterritorialzation," a releasing ideas, forms, behaviors, ideologies that were previously contained (you engage in "deterritorializing" if you choose option one above). For example, a novel may deconstruct the very idea of a "novel" in the way it uses language and conventional forms, or a novel may deconstruct a social category, striving to live on the "border" instead of a declared territory, or a story may deconstruct the dubious boundary between public and private history. So, your task is to explain how the "literary" text is itself engaged in the project of deconstruction. On the other hand, you should notice the ways in which the text "reterritorializes" or merely presents a new set of binaries and hierarchies even as it "deterritorializes." Using yet another set of terms, has the text "decentered" hierarchies and meaning or merely "recentered" it?

Part Three: Reveal Implications

You now need to show the implications of what you have just done. You are essentially answering the question, "So you have just demonstrated the instability or the multiplicity of potential meaning in the poem, ad, film, or whatever. So what?" Again, you may want to look at Scholes' essay to see how he uses the results of his deconstructive efforts. To get you started, please remember that you could answer the question, "What is possible now that I have problematized these binaries?" (i.e. For Scholes, problematizing the literature/non-literature binary allows us, among other benefits, to study a wider range of texts in a literature class and question the ideology of those who want to make literature a separate category.) Again, who benefits from keeping these terms separate? Who benefits from the present polarity? Who loses?

Finally...

Poststructuralist critique is known for its playful use of language as it blurs the boundaries between critical and creative writing. So, employ the same "literary" devices and strategies that a "creative writer" would use: narrative, figurative language (metaphor, simile, pun, allusion, personification, verbal irony), a range of forms (fable, axiom, epigraph, fragment, parable, collage, dialogue, multiple column, etc.), self-reflexive remarks (comment on the very process of using language and making claims) and creative punctuation (Many writers uses parentheses to multiply the meanings of single words. i.e. "We are awash in (post)modern (re)presentations." Notice all the different ways to make sense of that sentence!) Make your own critical analysis a delight to read. Revel in and exploit the inherent instability and generative power of language. The bottom line is that you need to "unsettle the relations between the literary work and the critical text." Deconstruct the very form you use to make deconstructive insights.