The following thought piece addresses the issue ‘what next’ by considering the effects of poststructural thought on the field. Specifically, I argue that poststructuralism has emerged in the field as a problem that a number of geographers have endeavoured to solve by devising new theoretical frameworks and innovative methodological principles, the purpose of which is to make social science ‘better’. In response I suggest that the problems posed by poststructuralism are fundamentally unanswerable and that they are meant to be recognised rather than resolved. While poststructuralism effectively reveals the limits of social science, it should not seduce us into thinking we can somehow do social science differently. This is because social science always involves doing some kind of metaphysics–that is, the practice of determining, delimiting, representing, and explaining how the world works. The goal of this paper is to discuss the relationship between metaphysics and deconstruction as an ontological condition that cannot be surmounted through study or thought. I conclude by suggesting that the goal of social science should not be to get around this relationship but rather to embrace it as a fundamental aspect of what we as geographers, social scientists, and human beings do.