Given below are two statements:
Statement I: The poststructuralists’ genre critics suggest that the way to ‘de-essentialize’ genre is to re-cast it in terms of discourse
Statement II: But while the poststructuralist move toward dialectical exchange and ideology is both useful and necessary, conceiving of genre primarily in terms of discourse reveals certain limitations that are intrinsic to poststructuralism’s basic approach to discourse and to the relationship envisioned between discourse and subjectivity.
In light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options given below:

The correct option is: Both Statement I and Statement II are false.

Let us analyze the reasoning behind why both statements are considered false in the context of genre theory and poststructuralist critiques:

Analysis of Statement I:
Statement I suggests that poststructuralists' genre critics advocate for "de-essentializing" genre by re-casting it in terms of discourse. However, in critical theory, the movement to de-essentialize genre by connecting it to social action, rhetorical situations, and discourse is primarily associated with rhetorical genre studies (or new rhetorical genre theories) rather than poststructuralist genre critics specifically. Poststructuralism generally focuses on the instability of meaning, deconstruction, and the fluidity of textuality rather than proposing a systematic re-casting of genre constructs strictly in terms of discourse structures. Thus, Statement I misattributes the source of this specific conceptual shift, making it false.

Analysis of Statement II:
Statement II asserts that conceiving of genre primarily in terms of discourse reveals limitations intrinsic to poststructuralism's approach to discourse and subjectivity. However, this statement mischaracterizes the critique of poststructuralist discourse theory. The integration of genre into discourse theory actually seeks to overcome the limitations of abstract poststructuralist views of language by grounding it in concrete social practices and ideological dialogue. The critique presented in the statement inaccurately locates these limitations within the intrinsic framework of the relationship between discourse and subjectivity as envisioned by poststructuralism itself. Hence, Statement II is also false.