oh absolutely, why not? But I am highly persuaded that you need to really believe in the merits of structuralism to use it and it should not just be another theoretical tool. I believe it has clear philosophical underpinings, particularly with its emphasis on form.

Yes, it is possible, although it would be an interesting challenge. After all, structuralism was criticized for being too formal and technicalhistorically , the implication technicalbeing that it did not take into account politics and ethics adequately.

I think you can, and it would be especially constructive to compare and contrast the reading derived from structuralist poetics to the reading derived from postmodern hermeneutics. The dialogue between the two views would probably reveal a spectrum of political views the text negotiates.

Surely it would depend on whether what you want to say could be arrived at using structuralist poetics? Too often we think that 'truth' - or what we want to say - is the product of a method, a box of philosophical or literary-theoretical tools, instead of that method being the best, or inevitable or most convenient, way of expressing the insight or inspiration which pushes us to write. We make theory, not the other way round, not so?