Poststructuralist theory is itself a postmodernist symptom, not a neutral tool

Evidence

But what is today called contemporary theory — or better still, theoretical discourse — is also, I want to argue, itself very precisely a postmodernist phenomenon. It would therefore be inconsistent to defend the truth of its theoretical insights in a situation in which the very concept of “truth” itself is part of the metaphysical baggage which poststructuralism seeks to abandon. What we can at least suggest is that the poststructuralist critique of the hermeneutic, of what I will shortly call the depth model, is useful for us as a very significant symptom of the very postmodernist culture which is our subject here. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 63

Categorization

• XREF: Core to the reader’s falsifiability project: if the theory used to describe postmodernism is itself a symptom of it, the analysis risks self-undermining circularity. — connects to: Poststructuralism is essentially a discourse of modernism, not postmodernism — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 285; Habermas’s poststructuralism critique is shaped by German anxieties over reactionary challenges — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 367; Postmodernism is best treated as a historical condition, not an ideas set. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 32 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does treating theory-as-symptom make the cultural-dominant thesis unfalsifiable, since any critique is also absorbed as evidence?