DeManian deconstruction rejects homologies because discourse precedes any content

Evidence

For example, these essentially philosophical questions about the primacy of language are to be sharply distinguished from methodological ones, in which a certain approach to the language of a variety of different kinds of texts is defended. Unlike what has been shown for the New Historicism, distinct also from certain occasional moments in Derrida (particularly those that flirt with psychoanalytic motifs), homologies play no part in DeMan because they imply analogies between objects, content, or raw materials within discourse; whereas in DeMan we witness, as it were, the very emergence of discourse itself, so that such content cannot even yet be said to be present for inspection (and when it does come into view, after the fashion of the Russian formalists’ “motivation of the device,” our peculiar perspective will require us to grasp it rather as the pretext of the discourse in question and its projection: “guilt” is the mirage produced by confessional discourse). — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 529

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies what distinguishes DeMan’s philosophical language question from methodological approaches, and what ‘homology’ means here.