The dominant interpretation of a text is judged tyranical, several deconstructions later its deposed: the reader has liberated himself from the domination of the other - he has freedom?
The Creator defines good, one rebellion later he's rejected: the creature has liberated himself from the domination of the other - he has freedom?
The basic problem with the postmodern liberation of the reader from dominant interpretations is that it fails to free readers from themselves. The irony of this liberation from fixed orders is that the postmodern self becomes free and responsible only by emptying out everything that opposes it. That meaning is not "really" there, but only an impostition of institutional idealogies and practices, is a liberating insight for the postmodernist; for if nothing is really there, then nothing can make a claim on my life. Must we say, amending Derrida, that there is nothing outside oneself? This does seem to be the logic behind much postmodern thought. An independent reality with its own intrinsic order would limit my creativity and call my freedom into question. [Vanhoozer, p.394]One may reject that there is an Other, but that doesn't help with the problem of Self. The problem of Self is not the ultimate problem: the ultimate problem is that of God's wrath on the selfishness of the Self. But rejecting that there is a God, an ultimate Other, doesn't get rid of the problem. The world continues to have otherness to it, and selfishness continues to be a problem - none of the little others made in God's image appreciate it, even if you imagine that God himself isn't there in judgement of it. And so the problem with our preoccupation with freedom - freedom from political tyranny, from textual/authorial dictatorship, from patristic culture, or what you will - is that we fail to free ourselves.
To be truly free, we need set free by that Other we have denied, to live freely in his dominion as designed. Otherwise, we're trying to be fish out of water. Again.