Göstergebilim ve yapısal dilbilim alanında Türkiye'de önde gelen isimlerden olan Tahsin Yücel'in roman ve öyküleri, bir anlamda bu eleştirel örneklendirmektedir. Ancak, bu çalışma, Tahsin Yücel'in Komşular adlı öykü kitabındaki üçüncü öyküsü olan "Aramak"ı yapısökümcü bir bakış açısıyla okumayı amaçlamaktadır. Post-yapısalcı felsefe, temel olarak Aydınlanma projesi ve metafiziğine radikal bir eleştiri getirir. Bu felsefenin öncülerinden olan Jacques Derrida'nın post-yapısalcı felsefesine dayanan yapısökümcülük, bir kuram ya da yöntembilim olmaktan çok bir okuma biçimidir. Çünkü her koşulda aynı şekilde uygulanan kurallar bütününe ya da uygulama yöntemine sahip değildir. ikili karşıtlıkların temelsizliği bir nebze kanıtlanmaya çalışılmıştır. İçerik incelemesinin ötesine giden teknik bir okumayı gerektiren bu yöntem metinselliğin vurgulanması açısından da etkin bir yol sunar. Bu inceleme, "Aramak" öyküsünün kolay yorumlanabilir, anlamı kapalı bir sistemden (readerly) çok okuyucunun haz almasını sağlayan, çokanlamlı, çeşitli okumalara açık, çok katmanlı ve bu çok anlamlılığı keşfetme konusunda okuyucunun aktif katılımını gerektiren (writerly) bir metin olduğunu da göstermektedir. Metine bakış açısı hep bir "eleştirel çıkmazı" göz önünde bulundurduğunda, yazarın ulaşmak istediği amaca tam anlamıyla ulaşamamış olduğu gözlemlenmektedir Bu "eleştirel çıkmazı" özendiren yapısökümcü okuma, Türk öykü çalışmalarında çoksesliliği ve üretkenliği sağlayacak bir yaklaşım olma ihtimaline sahiptir

Tahsin Yücel, a prolific Turkish novelist, essayist, critic and short story writer, is one of the first practitioners of semiotics in Turkey after his close contact with A. J. Greimas. His oeuvre is usually analysed through the lens of semiological principles and structuralist reading regarding Yücel’s writings about the semiological tradition; however, this paper attempts to read Tahsin Yücel’s third short story, “Aramak”—which can arguably be translated as “Quest”—in his short story collection entitled “Komşular” (“Neighbours”) through deconstructive strategies which focus on the instability of meaning within a text, try to dismantle the binary oppositions and question the authority of the writer. “Aramak” (“Quest”) is about a postman in a remote Anatolian village called Ötegeçe who is in search of a new wife after the death of his father. The story ironically revolves around Postman Münür’s marital life, his declining masculinity and social hypocrisy about the institution of marriage and conception of beauty. The climax of the story takes place when Münür seeks to get married to a woman who looks exactly the same as his first wife who is notoriously ugly. The details that the unreliable narrator of the story provides make a deconstructive reading of the text possible. The theoretical framework briefly revisits the principles of structuralist reading in order to comment on how deconstruction is both a continuation of and a resistance to Saussurean linguistics which views language as a closed system and semiological analysis which focuses on an inherent, stable structure within a text. Acknowledging the fact that Derrida avoids having a set of rules while deconstructing a text, I follow certain reading strategies used by Derrida himself in his writings: concentrating on the aporias within the text and on the moments when the text undermines its own logic/structure; critiquing the hierarchy between binary oppositions—particularly, beauty and ugliness, presence and absence, masculinity and femininity; and finally showing the instability of meaning through textual references. Ötegeçe, not only Yücel’s actual birthplace but also the setting of the story, comes to have a mystical presence with the descriptions of the narrator. The demasculinized body of Postman Münür becomes the locus of the definitions of transcendental beauty, questioning the binary oppositions of beautiful/ ugly, masculine/feminine and presence/absence. The aporias in the text reveal that the central narrative of the story—the idea of searching a new wife for postman Münür or subverted quest theme—comes to have a meaningless and absurd ground since the narratological ellipses and authorial commentary cancel any accurate meaning to be achieved by textual details. This deconstructive interpretation of “Aramak” has also aimed to open Yücel’s oeuvre to new interpretations along with those which concentrate upon structuralism and semiotics. Such a deconstructive reading does not intent to be conclusive about the particular story analysed; on the contrary, it foregrounds the pleasure that the reader takes while dissecting the text through its minute details, finding the impasses of meaning and showing the defaults in the logical structure of the story Tahsin Yücel, a prolific Turkish novelist, essayist, critic and short story writer, is one of the first practitioners of semiotics in Turkey after his close contact with A. J. Greimas. His oeuvre is usually analysed through the lens of semiological principles and structuralist reading regarding Yücel’s writings about the semiological tradition; however, this paper attempts to read Tahsin Yücel’s third short story, “Aramak”— which can arguably be translated as “Quest”—in his short story collection entitled “Komşular” (“Neighbours”) through deconstructive reading strategies which focus on the instability of meaning within a text, which try to dismantle the binary oppositions and question the authority of the writer. “Aramak” (“Quest”) is about a postman in a remote Anatolian village called Ötegeçe who is in search of a new wife after the death of his father. The villagers, particularly the women who adore Münür’s “strange” beauty, are preoccupied with his search of second. The story ironically revolves around Postman Münür’s marital life, his declining masculinity and social hypocrisy about the institution of marriage and conception of beauty. The climax of the story takes place when Münür seeks to get married to a woman who looks exactly the same as his first wife who is notoriously ugly. The details that the unreliable narrator of the story provides make a deconstructive reading of the text possible. The theoretical framework briefly revisits the principles of structuralist reading in order to comment on how deconstruction is both a continuation of and a resistance to Saussurean linguistics which views language as a closed system and semiological analysis which focuses on an inherent, stable structure within a text. It is important to note that Derridean deconstruction focuses on the text itself (“there is nothing outside the text”), particularly on the margins of the text and on the moments when meaning is delayed or cancelled. Thus, a deconstructive reading requires the active participation of the reader and the act of deconstructing the text becomes a mode of rewriting. Acknowledging the fact that Derrida avoids having a set of rules while deconstructing a text, I follow certain reading strategies used by Derrida himself in his writings: concentrating on the aporias within the text and on the moments when the text undermines its own logic/structure; critiquing the hierarchy between binary oppositions—particularly, beauty and ugliness, presence and absence, masculinity and femininity; and finally showing the instability of meaning through textual references. Ötegeçe, not only Yücel’s actual birthplace but also the setting of the story, comes to have a mystical presence with the descriptions of the narrator. Ötegeçe, which can roughly be translated as “passing/ going beyond,” signifies the beyond, the threshold, and opens itself to a number of interpretations. The demasculinized body of Postman Münür becomes the locus of definitions of unearthly and transcendental beauty. From a structuralist point of view, the opposition of beauty and ugliness is one of the basic elements that support the structure of story. Therefore, the analysis starts by questioning the hierarchy between the conceptions of beauty and ugliness and shows how this opposition works against itself within the plot of the story. Apart from that, the reading aims to elaborate on other binary opposition such as masculine/feminine and presence/absence. The focus of the story—finding a new wife—nonsensically becomes an attempt to redefine Münür’s body through the signifiers of masculinity. This attempt also shows the instability of the binary oppositions of beauty and ugliness through the multiple perspectives of characters. Finally, the central metaphor of the story, the quest, does not follow a logical structure, problematizes the causality and assumed structural relationships. Towards the end of the story, the narrator cancels the meaning by admitting that the story he has just told is absurd and he does not believe in it. The aporias in the text reveal that the central narrative of the story—the idea of searching a new wife for postman Münür or subverted quest theme—comes to have a meaningless and absurd ground since the narratological ellipses and authorial commentary cancel any accurate meaning to be achieved by textual details. This deconstructive interpretation of “Aramak” has also aimed to open Yücel’s oeuvre to new interpretations along with those which concentrate upon structuralism and semiotics. Such a deconstructive reading does not intent to be conclusive about the particular story analysed; on the contrary, it foregrounds the pleasure that the reader takes while dissecting the text through its minute details, finding the impasses of meaning and showing the contradictions in the logical structure of the story