SRS,

I'm hanging in there - but only just. You still haven't answered my point about structuralism changing from a useful (?) method for analysing texts into a "theology" and a "dogma".
And, surely, Derrida's lack of "secure ground" renders the method useless? As a scientist I am used to establishing baselines and in comparing things with controls - without such baselines and controls you can't really measure (or analyse) anything.
Nevertheless, lack of secure ground doesn't seem to have stopped the structuralists from commenting on scientific matters; Wheen cites the French Structuralist, Luce Irigay, who 'denounced' Einstein's famous E = mc^2 as a "sexed equation" ...