Final answer:
Poststructuralists argue that deconstructing state sovereignty reveals it as a non-objective construct, difficult to replace with a global community. They believe meanings and realities are constructed through social interactions, power dynamics, and are always in flux. Figures such as Foucault and Derrida have driven this debate, particularly through approaches like deconstruction.
Step-by-step explanation:
Poststructuralists indeed warn that deconstructing state sovereignty may expose it as less objective than typically presented, but they assert that it's difficult to go beyond such constructs or to easily replace them with a global community. This skepticism links closely with poststructuralist thought that challenge's objective facts, universal structures, and notions of absolute truth.
The understanding is that meaning, as well as socio-political realities like state sovereignty, is continuously shaped by human interactions and power dynamics, which poststructuralists argue make it almost impossible to replace with a global community. They suggest that any claim to a universal system of relations is, in fact, a product of human imagination and societal power structures.
Poststructuralists like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida have influenced this discourse significantly. Derrida's deconstruction approach, for example, encourages the examination of texts (and by extension, concepts such as state sovereignty) to understand the multiplicity of meanings and the power relations that privilege certain interpretations over others.
The dynamic and constructed nature of social realities opposes the structuralist view, which seeks to define realities within fixed, universal structures like language or mathematics.