My initial reaction was "sounds like a bunch of navel-staring semiotics." Then I spent 20 minutes bouncing around Wikipedia to conclude that "it sounds like a bunch of navel-staring semiotics." I've never read Derrida. I've read people describing Derrida and they make him sound like a jackass. I have read Nietzsche and I have no qualms whatsoever stating that he was a stone-cold jackass. Sorry for responding to your essay with terse doggerel, but you're describing a corner of philosophy that makes me hate philosophy.
Yeah, that's sort of the underlying problem I have with this idea. Am I not getting it completely or are they talking out of their asses? Some of the articles talk about the dominant ways of thinking in science, and while that is a legitimate question, they then talk about scientists having a hard time accepting their way of thinking - a red flag for me. There's parts of the idea that I think does hold up as more than navel-gazing. Thinking about how structure / society influences your decisions is an important part, for example. Language definitely shapes the way you think. What appeals to me is that it questions basic assumptions about how we think about the world. It basically implies that anything beyond STEM science is heavily influenced by how we think about it, and that we need to take a serious look at our biases (I might be reading too much into it though).
I thought about this, and I'm less full of vinegar. Here's the problem: If someone puts forth ideas, their ideas can stand on their own merits. If someone puts forth a classification system to discuss all similar ideas, the individual ideas cease to matter - it is the characteristics those ideas share in common that becomes the subject of discussion. I can't recall a single good idea Nietschze had. But I read 'em. Derrida? Derrida I've only seen talked about and what people say annoys me. So by slamming Derrida under the label of "poststructuralism" I'm given a handy way to evaluate Derrida without having to read Derrida, and I don't think that does anyone any good. If you're a philosopher, and you want to talk about all the different people who have said similar things, a label like "poststructuralism" is useful in shop talk. But if you want to hear ideas, it isn't. After all, "convertibles" covers everything from the Geo Metro to the Ferrari California. One of those I'd like to drive. The other? Not so much.
Yay! I think "post structuralism" in poetry would probably relate to the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, and/or nonsense, and/or Dada-ist poets. Not too well read on those. Also, "de constructivist" performance pieces.
My general casual rule of thumb is that anything "post-" something else pretty much exists only to critique that other thing which invariably came before. With that in mind it becomes almost too easy to dismiss "post-" movements as "all commentary and no original, and therefore not as creative or interesting." Duchamps was a post-. It also seems like a potentially lazy way that historians use to categorize a movement when they aren't quite sure what else to call it. So burn the label. - Dada would approve.