Rousseau’s construction-then-deconstruction is idiosyncratic and cannot be generalized to all great texts.

Evidence

This now uniquely allows us to observe the forging of a historical conceptuality ex nihilo and its simultaneous dismantling out of suspicion and distrust — a construction followed immediately in the same text by a deconstruction. Although some more general rhetoric of “deconstruction” (as an ideology) goes on to suggest that all “great” texts thus deconstruct themselves, or that literary language as such always does so, these assertions cannot be generalized on the basis of the analysis of Rousseau; while in the meantime, further “explanations” of Rousseau’s privileged epistemological possibilities in this respect — his “paranoia” or his social and historical situation — have already been strategically blocked in DeMan (“of more interest in its results than in its causes”). — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 502

Categorization

• XREF: Relevant to the reader’s push on whether totalizing claims (like ‘cultural dominant’ or ‘all texts deconstruct’) are falsifiable — Jameson here makes an anti-totalizing move against deconstruction ideology.
• QUESTION: How does this anti-generalization caution square with Jameson’s own totalizing postmodernism thesis?