It can be considered a human tendency to follow traditional patterns of thinking using binary oppositions as a way to process and organize thoughts in order to understand people and structure society. Deconstruction analyzes the origin of the methods that assert “meaning”, yet the reality is that there is no ultimate truth. The conception of meaning shifts with social and historical circumstances so it is therefore not an absolute. Derrida seeks to deconstruct the assumptions of gender, economic, political and cultural ideologies. He questions the social movements and ideologies we have taken for granted (i.e. “what it means to be feminism”).  Derrida developed the application of the deconstruction approach as a result of the ideologies not aligning with the base structure that brings society together. Deconstruction and the radical shifts it encompasses is necessary to create something novel; it opens up the space for a new articulation as a result of the transformation of language.  
When language is critically analyzed to reveal oppositions, one may come to see that a single theory or institution cannot be applied to all people in a society. As a result of people’s differing views, an author cannot perfectly communicate their intentions.  Derrida explains this phenomenon describing that there is no meaning outside of the text. He suggests that on the absolute basis for understanding meaning, no text can be linked to an author’s original intentions. One word cannot perfectly be translated to another word because a single word can be related to an infinite number of other things. For example, if I were to write a story about a dog then I would probably be envisioning a very different image of the dog and associating different signifiers with it than what my reader would be imagining. Deconstruction therefore guides us to continually modify our language choosing more descriptive terms to narrow down our intended meaning and subvert from internal contradictions. We can attempt to become better at describing exactly what we are trying to communicate and come to a closer meaning, however it is essentially impossible to secure an absolute truth applicable to all. As we attempt to more accurately describe the signified, we end up with an infinite amount of arbitrary signifiers all interconnected in a big web of possibilities showing that anything is open for interpretation and there is no solidified inherent truth. There is an immense overlap of signifiers that result from the deconstruction of language and ultimately these structures of the text dismantle themselves from within the text. Derrida argues that due to the critical dependence on arbitrary signifiers, philosophical constructs and literary oppositions are rendered subjective and naturally unstable. Therefore, Derrida points to the fact that language itself is merely subjective and meaning is contingent upon an individual’s own interpretation. This examination of the interplay between language and the construction of meaning is a major theme of postmodernity, challenging the basis of beliefs that have been accepted as “absolute truths”.  
Additionally, in Derrida’s book “The Ear of the Other”,  he discusses Nietzsche’s writings and uses them as a way to question his beliefs about certain topics. Derrida argues that the readings of Nietzsche are unfinished opening up debate for philosophical questions related to postmodern theories of subjectivity and inherent meaning. The unfinished structure of the Nietzschean text sparks questions relating to the meaning and interpretation of language, the history, life, and structure of the text, as well as political topics such as educational institutions and feminism. Derrida’s close reading of Nietzsche allows him to pick up on certain concepts such as the will to power, the nature of identity, and the umbilicus, urging him to question the structure of society. 
