Here's why:
* Genet's approach was more focused on the *psychological* and *theatrical* aspects of language and performance. He wasn't interested in dissecting texts for underlying codes and structures in the way that structuralists like Lévi-Strauss or Barthes did.
* Genet was deeply invested in the *subversive* power of language. He saw language as a tool to disrupt norms, create new meanings, and explore the margins of society. He was more interested in the *play* of language and its ability to expose hidden truths than in identifying its formal structures.
* His work was heavily influenced by Surrealism and Existentialism. These philosophies challenged the traditional ideas of logic and reason, emphasizing the importance of individual experience, dreams, and the unconscious. This informs Genet's approach to analyzing literature, where the meaning is often fluid and open to multiple interpretations.
That said, there are some elements of structuralist thought that *can* be seen in Genet's work:
* Emphasis on the binary: Genet often explored themes of good vs. evil, love vs. hate, truth vs. falsehood, and the sacred vs. the profane. This duality aligns with the structuralist focus on binary oppositions.
* Focus on the signifier and signified: Genet was fascinated by the way language can create and manipulate meaning. He saw words as powerful signifiers that can detach from their signified (the actual thing they represent), allowing for new and unconventional interpretations.
In conclusion: While Genet's literary criticism doesn't fit neatly into the category of "structuralism," it does share some thematic and conceptual overlaps with structuralist thought. However, it's ultimately more accurate to describe his approach as deeply personal, subversive, and driven by a desire to explore the hidden meanings and possibilities of language.