Why did deconstruction lead scholars to question whether completely objective interpretation is possible?

Deconstruction leads scholars to question the possibility of objective interpretation by challenging the assumption that language can convey a stable, singular, or transparent meaning.12

This skepticism arises from several key arguments:

• The Instability of Language: Deconstructionists argue that linguistic meaning is determined by an endless "play" of differences between words, rather than by an author's fixed intention or an objective reality. Because words are defined by their contrast with other words—which are themselves defined by further contrasts—meaning is never fully present; it is "deferred" in an infinite chain.1
• The Critique of Logocentrism: Western philosophy has traditionally been "logocentric," assuming that truth exists independently of language. Deconstruction reveals that texts are built upon binary oppositions (e.g., speech/writing, nature/culture) that are not natural or objective, but are instead "constructions" of the text itself.1
• The Role of the Interpreter: Because language is inherently "slippery" and opaque, and because what a text does not say can be as significant as what it does, deconstructionists contend that an author's original intention can never be definitively known or recovered.2

Consequently, deconstruction suggests that interpretation is a creative act rather than a neutral discovery of objective truth.2