The Desconstruction and post-structuralism

26 Feb

The deconstruction in the philosophical sense of Jacques Derridá (1930-2004) can only be linkedaDesconstruçãoto the idea of reading text of post-structuralism, and structuralism is linked to Levy Strauss, and poststructuralism uses the basic premises of structuralism itself, besides Derridá one can cite Roland Barthes.
Deconstruction in the sense that Derridá gave to his thought, can not be confused with a concept or a method, is precisely the idea that objectivity (as a method) can not be used to ground the deconstruction, the sense that seems more correct is the of a “strategy” to read texts and to interpret them, for this the strong connection with the matter of the grammar (one of the main works of Derridá is Gramatology).
Derridá then says of his strategy (not concept or method): “What interested me at that moment … what I try to continue now in other ways, is alongside a general economy a sort of general strategy of deconstruction .. to go through the phase of an overthrow [of what he calls the double science] … to accept this need is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we do not treat, with a peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, with a hierarchy of violence. .. to deconstruct the opposition is first, at a certain moment, to overthrow the hierarchy.” (Derridá, 1975, 53-54).
For him the traditional metaphysical thought (I would say the idealist of modernity is more deeply) is the logocentric, which identifies it in pairs: identity and difference (its main argument), reason and sensation, logic and rhetoric, male and female, but without a doubt its main one is speech and writing.
This is central here because it deals with what we consider to be essential in ontology that is presence, but its argument is different from existentialists, although it also deals with the oral (well before modernity) and writing (Gutenberg here). “The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, would be a history of these metaphors and of these metonymies (the different names we use to refer to a stable foundation or foundation from which we can think totality of a structure or even reality in general] “(Derridá, 1995: 231).
In positions Derridá affirms that the difference (different in Portuguese translation which is not unlike other translations) is that one must connect his idea of deconstruction “to a point of rupture with Afhebung and speculative dialectics” (Derridá, 1975, 56). ) in clear opposition to the idea in Hegel’s philosophy that one concept can be reduced to another, but there is a play, the incessant alternation of primacy of one term over the other, thereby producing a situation of constant indecision.
Here he penetrates into the discourse on structuralism: “As opposed to epistemic discourse, structural discourse on myths, mythological discourse must itself be mitomorphic” (Derrida 1971: 230) and on this discourse Levy himself Strauss wrote: “It will be right to consider it [his book] as a myth: in any case, the myth of mythology” (Lévy-Strauss apud Derridá 1971: 242).
Derridá’s emphasis on textuality and writing is not a break with philosophy, but rather a deeper understanding of the linguistic shift beyond games, and the fact that he is so closely linked to literature is the penetration of his reading into department of literature, more specific in the United States, and this anglo-saxonic thought.
“The game” for Derridá “is always a game of absence and presence, but if we want to think radically, we must think them before the alternative of presence and absence; it is necessary to think of being as presence or absence from the possibility of the game, and not vice versa ” (Derridá, 1971, 248).
The difference is thus in the “inside” and “outside” of the presence, its deconstruction thus seeks to relate to the mythology but to disassemble it, in an ethnocentric perspective, that makes prevalence of the conceptual thought on the mythical, of the logical reasoning on the bricolage , which is made by Lévy-Strauus himself, to think of myth as an original form of thought is to reduce it to episteme.


Derridá, J. Posiçõe. Semiologia e Maerialismo. Tradução de Maria M. C. Barahona. Lisboa: Plátamo, 1975.
___ Margins of Philosophy. Campinas: Papirus, 1991.
___ The write and the difference. São Paulo: Perspectivas, 1971.
___ Gramatology. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1999.


Comentários estão fechados.