The post-structuralist critique of historiography represents a profound challenge to the discipline's traditional epistemological assumptions. The contention that history constitutes an objective recovery of a singular past is dismantled in favor of viewing it as a discursive construction, contingent upon the linguistic and conceptual frameworks of the present. This perspective posits that historical inquiry is inevitably mediated through 'discursive formations'—systems of thought, language, and power relations, as theorized by Foucault, which dictate the very possibility of what can be articulated and conceived as historical truth in a given epoch. Consequently, the historian is not a neutral conduit to the past but an agent operating within, and circumscribed by, prevailing epistemological constraints. Concomitant with this Foucauldian critique is the Derridean concept of deconstruction, which further destabilizes the historical text. Deconstruction exposes the internal contradictions and aporetic junctures within historical narratives, revealing their dependence on logocentrism—the metaphysical privileging of a singular, authoritative meaning. The inherent polysemy of language means that no text, historical or otherwise, can achieve absolute semantic closure. This textual instability subverts any claim to a definitive interpretation. The cumulative effect is a fundamental reorientation of the historical enterprise: away from the pursuit of teleological narratives and incontrovertible facts, and towards an analysis of the processes by which historical meanings are produced, contested, and continuously remade. History thus becomes an interrogation of its own representational strategies rather than a transparent window onto bygone realities.