We often use words such as "I think it's right" and "I don't think it's right" in our

daily lives. These aspects

appear not only in our lives, but also in culture, art, movies, and literature. In particular, languages that are
privileged in binary oppositions such as good and evil, and true and false make humans decide the ideology of
certain situations or texts of a particular era. Perhaps it is true that humans have formed civilization and
continued to develop based on this, but if you look closely, there are weak points. Is there really a basis for us to
say that it is right or not? Of course, there may be a sense of truth in the knowledge accumulated through each
individual's own experiences, but can we really say that it is objective? Before discussing this idea, I will first
briefly mention structuralism, explain deconstruction, and then deconstruct the novella, Dr. Jekyll and Hyde
based on this, and finally explain the ultimate purpose of it based on the reader-response criticism.

Structuralism saw literature as being operated by systems such as larger structures, not individual elements. In
particular, Saussure tried to find a system of language using a synchronic approach, and through signifier and
signified, language is not explained through our external world, but is arbitrary, customary, and based on
differences. Expanding Saussure's argument, LeviStrauss said that each of the conflicting concepts allows a
more complete understanding of each other, looking at individual items for structural elements. Another scholar
who was active at the time, Roland Bart, saw that the description was created on a binary opposition, and the
readers should pay attention to it and decide the meaning through observation of the relationship.
Deconstructivism, which emerged as structuralist theory gradually developed, sometimes contradicted
structuralism, paving a new way for literary criticism, especially with the emergence of French philosopher
Jacques Derrida, influenced by Nietzsche and Heidegger. He did not accept transcendental signified, but
emphasized the impossibility of determining text, paying attention to the flux of thinking and changes in
signifiers. If it was structuralism to see that language was composed of a system of symbols and that one symbol
was distinct from all other symbols, Derrida saw that the notation could refer to other symbols and that it would
lead to a series of other signs. In particular, he said that through the différance, the meaning is always delayed
and the difference in the signifiers remains. In the Western society, where logocentrism and phonocentrism
prevailed in the past, stable and continuous absolute truth was pursued through dual thinking. In response,
Derrida viewed binary oppositions as completely inseparable and complementary relationships. In particular, he
emphasized that writing should be prioritized by reversing the speech/writing binary, which was also seen as a
form of writing with repeatable signifiers. In other words, binary oppositions can overlap each other and do not
necessarily have to be separated.

In addition, he denied the metaphysical beliefs of beings that dominated the West in the past and tried to open
the door to new thinking about text through the deconstructing of concepts created by humans. In particular, I
think that reading works based on deconstructivism should not only interpret the subject as one, but should look
at the text through the double reading. In other words, after reading the text in a traditional way first, the text is
deconstructed by itself when they are revealed with questions about incompatible meanings in the second
reading. Therefore, the text implies the possibility of various interpretations, and the readers read them
repeatedly and act creatively. Looking at the novella Jekyll and Hyde, Jekyll appears as a promising doctor and
Hyde appears as a brutal killer. Traditional scholars and numerous public have read Jekyll as a symbol of good
and Hyde as a symbol of evil, which can be seen as emphasizing that Jekyll is a nicer and more positive being
than Hyde through the conflicting values between the two identities. The scene where Jekyll's morality and
Hyde's beast collide with each other reveals the dual existence of ambivalence seeking good and evil within
humans. This aspect is more emphasized through the appearance of Jekyll trying to escape from the morally
corrupt Hyde through the continuous development of drugs. Then, what if we reverse this opposition? Perhaps
Jekyll is socially recognized under the mask of goodness, but this may all be because Hyde, the true essence that
exists inside him, wants to hide his true nature. However, as the story continues to unfold, the contradiction that
this conflict structure is gradually becoming unclear is revealed. On the big side of the novella, Hyde seems to
be described as a negative being based on the appearance or behavioral aspects of the two, but in the novel,
Hyde is often referred to as gentleman, and there is no clear distinction between the two, just as Jekyll is
described in the third person or Hyde in the letter.

As such, we can see that the structure of good/evil and reason/original instinct is gradually becoming ambiguous
toward the second half of the novel. Then, can we see Jekyll as a real good and Hyde as a real evil? Are these
two completely separated? As the author unfolds this novel, he encourages readers to break away from the
existing traditional discourse and create a new level of mindset and meaning. The binary opposition, which is
superficially visible in the title of the work, allows us to examine beyond a certain phenomenon by revealing
subjects that cannot be assumed by either Henry Jekyll or Edward Hyde as we go to the second half of the text.
The same goes for the movie Joker. Can Joker's smiling expression be seen as smiling because he is really
happy? In both of these works, we can observe that there is no clear concept, that good is like evil and evil is
like good. The novel ends with Jekyll's suicide, but it can be seen that it shows that the two identities are never
different empirically, not simply the destruction of moral good, but that they move toward truth through
non-duality. In connection with Derrida’s différance, the difference in time is in progress, so it is not in a
completed state, and the meaning continues to occur, allowing readers to reach the truth. In this way, the process
of advancing to truth in the text is not clearly presented, but by observing binary oppositions and confirming the
slip of language that appears in them, we can examine the self-deconstruction of the text. This is why Derrida
argued that there is no outside the text because the text here means philosophy, literature, art, society, as well as
all areas of life. In other words, inconsistency eventually opens up the possibility of various interpretations and
shows that there is nothing permanent and stable in the world amid persistent ambiguity. What we should keep
in mind when deconstructing works is that it should be the reader’s freedom to accept the story he or she wrote
to some extent, not completely excluding the author's intention.

As such, Derrida objected to the traditional Western writing ideology and insisted on new writing, and since
there are always differences and delays in meaning, the criticism of deconstruction pays attention to the gaps in
literary works and how the text is deconstructing itself. People basically look at the world in a way that two
elements conflict. In particular, in the East, the concepts of Yin and Yang were used and Descartes explained
existence and non-existence through reason and irrationality, but the ideas and philosophy after Kant
emphasized that what is outside is not real, but what is achieved when I accept it. In other words, when readers
encounter something beyond our general perception in appreciating literary works, good and evil are blurred,
and when all objects that can be obsessed with leave, we can only face free truth with sublime. Readers' freedom
and reaction are important here and they need to free their substantial nature instead of being dominated by
society, but that doesn't mean white is called blue or killing people just because they want to kill them is not
called freedom. They act as co-producers of text to fill in the gaps. By deconstructing ordinary structures that
generalize the world, we call out readers' freedom and reaction beyond thought, and through these processes, we
can reach the ultimate aim of un-signified truth, that is, art, through purification of mind. If we pursue who I am
in literature with an open mind through these processes, won't we be able to easily reach true-self, who is called
truth?