Deconstruction and Difference PhilosophyAn Approach to the Archaeology of Deferred and Potential Meaning, and the Philosophical / Epistemological Frameworks of Formation
https://doi-001.org/1025/17617200065132
Dr. Aoues Elwardi 1, Zahdour Fatima Zohra 2, Dr. Kamel Tahir 3, Yazid Bouadjadja 4, Dr. Belkacem Aouragh 5
1 University of Abbas laghrour- khenchela. Algeria. Email: Dodo.wardi40@gmail.com
2University of Abou bekr Belkaid-Tlemcen.Algeria. Email: Fz.zahdour@gmail.com
3 University of Abbas laghrour- khenchela.Algeria. Email: Katahir05@hotmail.fr
4 University of larbi tebessi-Tebessa. Algeria. Email: yazidboua135@gmail.com
5University of Hamma Lakhdar- El Oued, Algeria. Email: Belkacemaouragh40@gmail.com
Received: 12/01/2025 ; Accepted: 26/09/2025
Abstract
At the twilight of Structuralism, critical practice witnessed the emergence of deconstruction as both a philosophy and a critical approach concerned with unveiling the unspokenwithin the homogeny of meaning. It rose in rebellion against the modernist traditions that had marginalized the active role of the ideal reader in deconstructing the text and critically interrogating its intertextual relations and proliferating signifiers. Thus, deconstruction became an active and subversive strategy that excavates the very strata “fossils” of meaning, granting primacy to the act of reading as creative and generative process. Through this act, the reader liberates the text from the enclosure and constraints of closed, fixed and stable signification and interpretation, towards an infinite horizon of difference; an ever-shifting and open-ended field of meaning in perceptual motion. According to Derrida and Deconstructivism’ proponents, the text is a cultural construct that resists fixation, it never bound to single and final meaning; rather it must be fragmented, unveiled, and continually reconstituted through renewed acts of reading. Hence, deconstruction stands as one of the most influential contemporary theories of interpretation, one that was not born from philosophical and epistemological void, but grounded in diverse genealogies such as Husserl’s phenomenology and Heidegger’s ontology, particularly his mediation on the difference between beingand Being, without forgetting the paramount role of linguistics, structuralism, and other intellectual frameworks that contributed to shaping its conceptual foundations. Therefore, this study seeks to interrogate the boundaries of Deconstruction itself, critically examining its philosophical and epistemological lineages within the contemporary landscape of literary theory.
Keywords: Deconstruction, Difference, Postponement, Presence.
Introduction
In the Western intellectual landscape, critical thought has witnessed a series of profound ideological and methodological transformations and collisions that gavebirth of the theories and approaches that differed form the classical perspectives of textual criticism, one that had privileged the primacy of the text itself at the expense of its producer. However, critical visions’ evolution contributed to the decline and the eventual conclusion of the structuralist epoch and its self-referential readings that sought to locate a text’s essencesolely within its own confines.In addition, the postmodern theories, that born out of this intellectual upheaval, established themselves on a philosophy of skepticism and subversion challenging all life’s certainties and reapproaching the boundaries of textual practice from an alternative vantage point. This new perspective is built upon concepts such as Difference, scattering, postponement, contrast and other concepts that came to constitute what would later be known as the philosophy or strategy of deconstruction. This critical theory emerged from the womb of linguistic and structuralist studies, it began from the circle of the text, yet not for the sake of the text itself, but to engender a parallel reading, that resists fixed and totalized meaning. Thus, deconstruction became an active and vital strategy within postmodern critical approaches, distinguished by its genuine commitment to the act of reading performed by the reader. In this framework, the author’s task ends the moment the textual work is written, after which another mission begins: the search for the metaphorical (figurative) and the concealed within the text’s intricate layers. Accordingly, deconstruction, according to Derrida and his adherents, the text admits no boundaries of fixed significations; it proclaims, rather, it denounces the idea of heterogeneity and celebrates semantic difference, the endless play of signification.Therefore, the text is an infinite web of signifiers, a labyrinth whoseinterpretation demands that the reader trace its elusive paths.Derrida himself was a structuralist in 1960s, during the emergence of tis school. Yet, with the unfolding of global events and sweeping changes, particularly in Europe and its vicinity, the critical scene opened itself transcending modernist conceptions by excavating the textual strata and questioning the authority and sanctity of the text as a self-contained entity. This led Derrida to conceptualize the text as neither an autonomous structure nor a self-sufficient organism, but rather as a discursive construct shaped by the systems, codes, and references generated through the reader consciousness. This shift raises a crucial issue concerning the comprehension of deconstructive critical tenets and the ongoing attempts to address continual problematic thought about the origins of this critical strategy:
How did deconstructive project arise in form of its epistemic and philosophical foundations within the critical arena?
Is deconstruction a critical method, or does it transcend methodological boundaries to become a philosophical strategy of reading?
And to what extent did its emergence pose a threat to the pioneers of traditional critical thought?
These are questions that insistently present themselves,demanding satisfactory answers to quench the thirst for understanding the origins of Deconstruction, its approach to textual limits, and its relevance to the power of context and all spheres of life.
1/ Deconstruction as an Etymological Vision
In its linguistic context, the term “deconstruction” evokes the issue of undermining, demolition, dispersion, and fragmentation, the process by which the constituents of mental elements disengage from one another. Each element, once bound to another, tends towards separation until it becomes an abstract entity in itself. This intrinsic movement of disconnection and abstraction constitutes, from a philosophical perspective, the core authority of deconstruction[1].Furthermore, deconstruction refers to what Derrida calls the unity of difference, a paradoxical unity wherein thought is founded upon the multiplicity and infinite alterity within the temporal and spatial contexts that the self perpetually enacts[2]. Also, the term bears the connotations of demolition, dispersion, and undermining, particularly in Derrida’s critique of Western metaphysical thought, where he called for a thorough revision and undermining of all domains of Western philosophy for their adherence to illusory structures that offer nothing to the sanctity of the thinking self.He asserts that reality exists on a temporally accelerated, multi-dimensional and perpetually changing continuum; thus, consciousness must be freed from the authority of stagnant metaphysical dogmas that obstruct civilizational and intellectual expansion[3]. This confirms unequivocally that deconstruction is intrinsically linked to modes of demolition, difference, postponement, and undermining, all of which challenge the identity of the sacred and the centralized within the Western intellectual map. Its ultimate aim is to destabilize the authority of classical ideas and break the hegemony of prevailing metaphysical thought. Consequently, deconstruction extends its purview to all forms and manifestations of life, with criticism and its linguistic arsenal serving as a prime domain for its deep engagement in questioning the hidden recesses of language. To this end, the deconstructive approach immersed itself deeply in the subterranean layers of linguistic discourse, making the act of reading, rather than writing, the decisive process of meaning-making, whereby the reader becomes a renewed producer of the text.
From a terminologicalperspective,deconstruction is not a method with fixed parameters, but rather a philosophical strategy and an epistemic orientation that seeks to challenge the monolith of fixed meaning and instigate a clean break from static conceptions which view the text as bothself-enclosed and autocratic. All the frameworks surrounding language such as:context, reference, history, cultivate the reader’s awareness of the necessity to probe the profound obscurities within any literary work. For deconstruction, a text is neither a stablenorautonomous structure but contains latent images and references which the insightful reader must uncover. Thus, the text is a structure of differential meaning, not subject to a fixedor permanent semantic standard[4]; as Derrida stated that Deconstruction is neither a specific method nor a theory of literature, but a strategy of readingthat is, a way of interrogating philosophical, literary, and critical discourses by situating oneself within them and subverting them from within, by directing questions and challenges towards them from the inside[5].
Hense, deconstruction is an interpretive interrogation of the limits and demarcations of language within textual discourse. The text is a linguistic-cultural construct, that is not bound to a single signification but shaped by multiple meanings produced by the text’s new reader. In this sense, the author is a creative producer whose writing concludes upon the completion of the work, at which point a new interpretative mission begins, undertaken by the model reader—not a passive reader, but one equipped with a cultural-intellectual arsenal, tasked with uncovering the concealed and the hidden within the creative work.
According to the philosopher Christopher Norris, Deconstruction was a cultural and critical reaction to the constructive tendency of structuralist thought and its assertion of non-fixed meanings within the text’s structure. Therefore, the act of reading changes with the text’s readers, according to their epistemic frameworks and their active role in apprehending the truths of the implicit and metaphorical dimensions of language. This indicates that for Norris, deconstruction is an interpretive process with a nihilistic trajectory; it is, above all, the denial of a foundation or an origin, after interpretation had once been a mode of being rather than a mode of knowledge or non-being[6].
Accordingly, deconstruction pioneers a new approach centered on the act of reading performed by a new creator: the reader, with their dynamic role in liberating the text from its cultural and intellectual stasis, thereby effecting a radical revolution against the sacred tenets of textual structure. It views discourse as an incomplete systemthat only exists at its enunciated level, the linear manifestation composed of signifiers, which implies that discourse is constantly produced and does not cease with the death of its author. This is why deconstruction focused on the act of writing rather than speech, as the former embodies the principle of continuity and permanence in the absence of the original producer, the latter is tied to the immediacy of presence. This epistemic vision led Derrida to engage with Plato’s philosophy in the Phaedrus, concluding that if speech represents the act of presence for a logic of identity and unity, then writing represents absence, difference, multiplicity, and disparity[7].
Thus, Deconstruction becomes a critical strategy for reading various cultural discourses, for unveiling the hidden and suppressed within the metaphors and figurative images of language, and for attempting to dismantle intellectual systems to re-read them in the light of their cultural elements. This process aims to give voice to significations lying in the abyss of epistemic darkness, seeking to destabilize the signified tied to a single mode of reading and to retrieve what has been marginalized. It pursues a continuous enrichment of the signified in accordance with the multiplicity of readings of the signifier, leading to an infinite chain of signification. All of this is the work of the “Age of the Reader,” as clarified by the American deconstructionist critic Paul de Man, who framed deconstruction as a deconstructive philosophy that pursues the path of difference and does not believe in the sanctity of the text, instead subjects it to factors of change and epistemic reflection[8].Thereby, deconstruction constitutes an epistemic philosophy whose essence is the demolition of discursive centers of authority and the institution of new significations that run counter to prevailing logic,and liberates human consciousness from the labyrinths of static, fixed meaning towards a synthesis of ever-changing significations. In this sense, the text is anintertextual system linked to external units that contributed to its formation; one cannot approach the text’s action without external conceptual frameworks, such as history, psychology, and other fields of knowledge that deconstructive critics seek to place within the sphere of discourse. They aim to re-read it according to categories and concepts that ensure the text’s continuous reading from one reader to the next. Accordingly, reading is a dynamic, liberating act, not bound by fixed rules but requiring an interpretative craft shaped by a new producer of the text’s identity. Hence, deconstruction stands as one of the contemporary theories of reading that assigned crucial importance to the role of the reader within the text’s systems, emphasizing the necessity of forging a new awareness in reading practices. For deconstruction, a text is singular in its verbal, spoken, and indicative structure, but its implicit dimensions contain varied and differing significations from one reader to another. This is what grants the act of reading its enduring vitality across various discourses and intellectual systems.
To conclude, all of this and that directs our critical and research gaze towards this strategy, which did not emerge from an epistemic vacuum, but it established for itself set of philosophical and intellectual roots that contributed to the emergence of a strategy formulated by Derrida, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and others. Their critical discourses were founded on methodological tenets whose aim was to elicit new significations from the structures and contexts of texts, regarding all their diverse cultural and historical forms.
2. The Tenets of Deconstructive Strategy and the Consciousness of Reading
The philosophy of deconstruction is founded on set of methodological tenets that illuminate its critical approach to analyzing and interrogating the structures of textual discourse. In this sense, it forms a modern vision that opposes the authority of formal textual studies and simultaneously calls for a renewed reading of centralcultural and intellectual discourses through a new lens. It is a mechanism for exposing this centrality within the very core of its metaphysical, rational, and ethnocentric principles, on the basis that the West possesses a unique existence and rationality, interacting only with itself and feeling no need for anything outside its own being[9]. Consequently, deconstruction is positioned as a methodology for reading literary works based on the instability of meaning, revealed through a text’s internal contradictions. This methodology is defined by several key tenets: Difference, Logocentrism, and Grammatology, each of which forms a cornerstone of Derrida’s philosophical and critical frameworks.
2.1 Difference
Derrida’s thought relies heavily on the phenomenon of Difference, a neologism he constructed by playing on the French verb différer (which means both “to differ” and “to defer”). Through this verbal manipulation, he advanced his idea which dismantles the metaphysics of presence. He also elucidated a concept based on the conflict and proliferation of meanings from one context to another, thereby achieving the act of deferral, where the meaning of one signifier perpetually shifts to another.Additionally, Derrida presented the linguistic system as a carrier of codes and references founded on a network of differences. This means the concept of Différance is established upon a free, unconstrained system that manifests within the structure of language itself, a structure that bears various deviations and significations. This inherently raises the issue of the deferral and variance of meaning across contexts. Herein lies the reader’s task: to read the archaeology of differential meaning and to trace its manifestation according to the nature of the text.Consequently, the reader’s task is to unveil these sedimented traces of difference, perceiving meaning not as a fixed destination, but as an ever-shifting horizon of interpretive possibilities[10].
2.2 Logocentrism (The Centering on Reason)
Derrida critically rebelled against and rejected the eternity of the Logos and the authority of metaphysical containment manufactured by Western thought, which he argued was predicated on a philosophy of the presence of reason. He alsocriticized the view of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who reduced language to the presence of the spoken word through the binary of signifier and signified. Derrida opposes this prioritization of speech, which presupposes an originary presence, thereby rejecting the methodological core of structuralist thought that centered the structure of reason as the ultimate basis for determining definitive values and meanings for words.According toDerrida, meaning is not fixed at a stable point exercised by reason; rather, it represents aceaseless play of prior and subsequent signs, which permanently abolishes the presence and stable identity of meaning. Therefore, there is no central presence for the word, as it is a variable act whose forms multiply according to the nature of the reading[11]. Thus, Derrida highlighted the value of writing as an intellectual centrality that evokes infinite significations, in contrast to spoken words, which is subject to the temporality of presence, as it is language that shapes the actual reality of evoking a thing. Thus, he concluded by liberating the text towards the infinity of meaning, viewing it as a link in a chain of significations unmoored from a fixed referent, an infinite, transcendental signification made possible by its openness to multiple epistemic visions and interpretive readings. In Derrida’s view, a text is subject to an internal, written structure and another set of external references that contributed to its particularity and its identity. Therefore, the reader plays the role of deconstructive agent who must expose the veiled interior obscured by signifiers, which themselves practice a dispersal that leads the community of readers astray concerning the origin of meaning. However, in the lexicon of deconstruction, the text has no origin nor a conclusive end that binds it, it is a dynamic process of an internal and external demolition and fragmentation, granting the text’s identity new significations and ensuring the limitless continuous processes of deferring and fracturing meaning from one reading act to another[12].
2.3 Grammatology (The Science of Writing)
In his “Writing and Difference” and “Of Grammatology”, Derrida foregrounds the act of writing as a presentational alternative to the authorityof both spoken word and phonetics. He began his project by refuting the tenets of metaphysical thought, that focused on reason’s identity as a substitute for everything else, thereby relegating the word to a secondary status because it was tied to a set of phonetic utterances and did not necessitate a stable reading.Thus, he saw writing as a pluralistic production of the authority of meaning. In this sense, he distinguished between two types of writing: the first is logocentric writing, which treats the word as a phonic, linear, alphabetical tool that aims at conveying the spoken word, and the second type is grammatological writing, which establishes the very process of language production. For Derrida, writing precedes and exceeds the act of speech, which means that the authority of writing exerts a hegemony over the reasoning of reading by creating epistemic intersections with the significations of language. The voice is not equivalent to writing, as the former is linked to the theme of immediate presence, unlike writing, which remains present across the landscape of time despite the absence of the text’s producer[13].
Thus, writing represents an operative tenet in the deconstructive methodology because it grants the text a productive and generative dimension, the forms of which multiply according to the nature of the reading act performed by its audience. Writing, along with the other tenets, contributes to shaping the distinctive nature of reading within the deconstructive strategy, which aims to assert that a text is susceptible to multiple interpretations and endless hermeneutics, since there is no single, privileged center of meaning; the text is an open field of play, viewed as free, unbound by specific cultural or epistemic constructs.In this way, Derrida formulated a potent strategy that advocates for plurality and difference in the tracing of meanings, rejecting the authority of centering and transcendence practiced by Western metaphysical hierarchies of thought, instead, he installed the reader’s openness to dialoguing with and approaching language, giving voice to what has been silenced. Consequently, the Derridean intellectual project has thus extended into various sciences and epistemic fields, such as literature, criticism, and sociology, effecting profound transformations in the methodologies of analysis and reading.Despite all that has been said, it is imperative to raise an important issue concerning the origins and philosophical foundations of deconstruction. This strategy did not appear from a vaccum but was supported by philosophical and epistemic roots that contributed to establishing the pillars of one of the most important theories of contemporary reading.
3/ Philosophical and Epistemological Foundations of the Deconstructionist Strategy
No methodology or epistemology can exist without foundational origins in whose light it was crystallized, and Deconstruction stands as a paradigm of a contemporary critical approach that instigated a qualitative shift in the balances of criticism, owing to its openness to the authority of the reader as a productive textual agent who contributes to the creation of signifiers with endless meaning. Within this horizon, it renders the text akin to a dance where the metaphors and hidden figurations of language engage in an intellectualgame withits readers’ minds, such conception has opened the field of inquiry to trace the roots of this strategy’s formation and to examine the contributions of difference’ philosophers in establishing its principles. Among the primary philosophical backgrounds for the birth of Deconstruction are ancient philosophies that rejected and dismantled Western metaphysics and the idea of the logical Logos upon which it was built. Thus, Deconstruction proceeded to sever and deconstruct the authority of its transcendent, central discourse, replacing it with the authority of writing as an active element to refute phonocentric notions that marginalized writing and prioritized the spoken word as the logical basis for the rationalization of thought. Thus, Derrida and his followers rebelled against this logocentric tradition, instigating a profound transformation in the landscape of Western philosophy, which is a thought that had long been bound by the illusions and metaphysical constructs fashioned by the systems of Hegel, Socrates, Plato, Heidegger, Marx, and others who laid the intellectual foundations of both ancient and modern philosophy.
In addition, Derrida argued that different texts of all previous philosophers, despite various philosophical rigor and logical characteristics of their work, ultimately articulate certain truths while remaining silent on others. Consequently, it is evident that contemporary readers are called upon to extricate themselves from the labyrinth of fixed meaning and to instate infinite interpretations for the diverse texts conceived by these intellectuals. Thus, Derrida advocates for a move beyond the philosophy of metaphysics and the metaphysics of presence, urging a search for the unspoken within the dominion of knowledge and ideas. He engaged in a close reading of Hegel’s texts, influenced by some of their aspects despite his ultimate rejection of the Hegelian system. At the culmination of his own project, Derrida appropriated the concept of erasure and effacement, located at the core of the dialectic, where it signifies negation, and repurposed it to interrogate Hegel’s writings and elucidate the hidden recesses of thought. Through this, he arrived at a deconstruction of the Hegelian concept, viewing it as a representative of Western metaphysics.Similarly, Derrida was influenced by the Marxism of Karl Marx, even as he ultimately broke away from it. From Marx, he adopted the tendency to believe in the material reality of life and its constant change amidst class struggle. Likewise, meaning in the Derridean sense is seen as perpetually in flux, infiltrated by multiple systems and readings in the interpretation and hermeneutics of texts[14], all these perspectives contributed to his critique of the metaphysics of presence, a tradition founded on the centrality of reason and the congruence of thought with its own categories, positing things and beings as simply present. This logical paradigm, which had held sway from the era of Plato through to Hegel and his successors in many subsequent historical contexts, was thus subjected to a profound and destabilizing inquiry.
Furthermore, according to readings by Umberto Eco, Derrida was influenced by classical philosophical traditions, notably Hermeticism, Gnostic philosophies, and the tenets of esoteric mysticism. This influence is particularly significant given that Hermeticism was among the first to posit the principle of difference and to break the classical laws of identity and non-contradiction by speaking of a being that unites opposites, thereby prefiguring the authority of existential thought. Similarly, deconstruction is linked to Gnostic philosophy, which tied truth to unconstrained and indeterminate secrets and symbols, a vision that mirrors the deconstructive practice of subjecting the text to an open-ended reading. This is the same foundational idea advanced by symbolic, esoteric mysticism, which relies on divine Allah’s words that contain no fixed, binding cause for their majesty.This highlights the clear affinity between these philosophical currents and Deconstruction philosophy. Both operate on the premise that a text possesses no limits to its free signification, and that the forms of words themselves open onto an endless chain of semantic possibilities[15].
Beyond ancient schools of thought, deconstructive pioneersdrew profoundly upon several contemporary philosophical movements, which made significant contributions to its critical reason. Foremost among these are Phenomenology, Existentialism, and Nihilism, each of which are considered as philosophical frameworks that were instrumental in weaving the very tapestry of deconstructive criticism, where readers of Phenomenology, particularly through its pioneers’ works like Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and Franz Brentano, encounters an intellectual vision concerned with the intentionality of consciousness and its connection to aspects of lived experience and all that stirs within the human psyche as it engages with reality. Husserlian Phenomenology, in particular, stands as a pivotal force in modern philosophy, through which he called for liberation from the authority of preconceived opinions and an attempt to return to the things themselves. According to Husserl, the construction of knowledgeis not merely rational, but has an essential spiritual and experiential dimension.This conception was an explicit critique of the pioneers of rationalist philosophysuch as Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, and Kant, who focused on the role of reason in apprehending things according to pre-existing categories. In contrast, the Phenomenologists opposed this, by emphasizing the role of the individual subject in apprehending and engaging consciously with the essence of the text, free from ready-made conceptions.Furthermore, Husserl clarified that a sign contains two significations: one of transformation (which carries meaning) and another of reference (which points to something), which implies that the sign is a communicative medium that refers to an endless chain of significations[16], never related to a single interpretation. It was precisely this point that Derrida and his adherents leveraged to probe the nature of the text, searching for what was hidden, unspoken and suppressed,such exploitation gave rise to the central themes of difference and plurality of meanings from one reading to another. Consequently, Husserl and his philosophy became a prominent cornerstone of influence for otherdifference philosophers, who would later seek out the unthought and non-existent within the strata of prior knowledge.
In a close philosophical sphere of Phenomenology, Existentialism emergesd as another fertile tributary that deconstructionists drew upon to formulate their critical and epistemologicalrigor, as they returned to the works of Sartre, Heidegger, Albert Camus, and other founders of thisexistential thought, whose philosophyrevolved around the rejection and nullification of pre-given and absolute truths. Existentialism challenged the philosophy of presence found in classical metaphysics, advocating instead for the necessity of stripping truth bare to reveal an existence whose forms differ from one epoch to another[17].Thus, the founding fathers of Deconstruction capitalized on the vision of Existentialist philosophy to look for the labyrinths of meaning and to excavate the archaeology of inner being, by fostering a revolution against conventional and ready-made readings. Derrida reframed some of its core propositions to represent the reality of lived experience and to institute diverse readings and analyses of intellectual and cultural discourses, this culminated in the assertion that the truth of knowledge is one of endless existence, perpetually unfolding beyond any final and fixed interpretations.
Additionally, another philosophical movement that heavily influenced the deconstructionists is the Nihilism philosophy, it is often called the philosophy of the rebellious and insurgent human, spearheaded by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He was rebellious against the authority of metaphysical and systematic thought, desiring to unsettle all the structures and values that had, since ancient times, dominated human consciousness. His philosophy was a revolution against the metaphysical assumptions of classical thinking and also a revolt against the transcendent authority of the Church over the life of the mind.Additionally, Deconstruction was deeply influenced by this vision, owing to its own acute awareness of the necessity to transcend the sanctities and centralities of Western thought, particularly those rooted back to Greek philosophical foundations. Consequently, deconstruction adopted an effective methodology based on refuting the ecclesiastical authority of metaphysicsand introducing intersections and convergences among the multitude of truths articulated in prior discourses. Thus, it emphatically asserts that the vast majority of writings ever recorded carry an endless number of significations, which differ and shift according to the unique experience of each act of reading[18].
And away from the fundamental backgrounds,the trajectory of our inquiry leads us to the epistemic foundations that haveshape the basis of deconstructive criticism, among them were linguistics and structuralist criticism whose fields played an effective role in establishing the methodological groundwork from which Deconstruction arose.Indeed, Deconstruction was born out from the heart of linguistic study, particularly from the work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, whose synchronic and descriptive approaches to language introduced binaries like diachronic/synchronic and signifier/signified, which isconsidered as a turning point influence. In this sense, Derrida was particularly influenced by Saussure’s principle of the arbitrary nature of the sign and the conventional relationship between the concept (signified) and the acoustic image (signifier). However, he radicalized this insight, through emphasizing the signifier’s role in generating an endless chain of meanings, while he simultaneouslycriticized Saussure’s privileging of speech (parole). As for Saussure, speech was an individual event governed by one linguistic element, but for Derrida, thisphonocentric view was a limitation. According to Derrida, writing is considered as the fundamental point for constituting productive linguistic action, and as an indispensable element in the process of communication that cannot be separated from it. Hence, reading act differs from one reader to another; the relationship is not merely arbitrary but generates a trace of signification produced by the reader at the moment of performing a new reading, since all meanings carry within them dormant and silent significations that require an ideal critical reading to activate[19]. From this perspective, Derrida launched his project based on the non-self-identity of the sign, whose identity is derived from its difference from other signs, leading to a perpetual substitution of one sign for another, each sign shifting into different semantic contexts. This highlights the reader’s freedom to trace, interrogate and unveil the text’s hidden and latent dimensions.In parallel, Structuralismand its subsequent methodologieshad significantly contributed to establishing deconstructive criticism, particularly through the efforts of Roland Barthes, who is the pioneer of semiological structuralism. The pioneering semiologist, in his reflections on writing and its dynamic role in liberating the text from the confines of closure and stability, argued that the text is a unit of non-linear network of signification and that the “death of the author” occurs with the experience of writing itself, which highlights the clear convergence and influence between Derrida and Barthes, a connection reinforced by their shared association with the critical group Tel Quel. Hence, there was an epistemic affinity in their methodological approach to textual limits, which reached its height in Barthes’ analysis of Balzac’s story Sarrasine in his book “the Pleasure of the Text”,where he attempted to decipher the various codes present in the story, such as the hermeneutic, cultural, and connotative alike. According to Barthes, linguistic signs are not subject to a single semantic system but carry contextual and figurative meanings based on the metaphors and symbolic networks stored within the text’s structures.Amidall of theseintertwined intellectual backgrounds, Deconstruction formally announced itself in 1966 as a contemporary strategy concerned with unveiling the truths of texts and discourses, while attempting to break down the centralities of preconceived judgments[20]. For the philosophers of difference, the text is seen as a free and unbound system that sings its linguistic codes across vast seas of language and metaphor. This makes the search for textual clues akin to searching for a needle in a haystack, for Deconstruction does not recognize the centrality of meaning; instead, it believes in the nullification of stability and the infinity of semantic reading.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as this journey of inquiry into the Deconstruction project comes to and end, it may be said that deconstruction affirms its standing as one of the most influential theories of contemporary reading. It has fundamentally restored the reader’s value within the map of creative production. Emerging from a systematic methodology dedicated to subverting and dismantling the central authorities of intellectual and cultural discourses, Deconstruction has reconceived the textual structure as an infinite constellation of signs and semantic codes, thereby it calls for an ideal reader. Not all that glitters in the pinnacles of writing allows easy access to its semantic archaeology; this is precisely what led the philosophers of difference to depart from the theme of the text-in-itself, and to searchfor new meanings that defy conventional interpretations. In this light, texts possess an overt, structural facade and a covert, latent semantic depth, concealed behind literary metaphors and textual allegories wielded by the author. Thus, Deconstruction strives to unveil the unspoken and the marginalized within human discourse edifices.It is crucial to reiterate that the philosophy of Deconstruction did not emerge from an epistemic vacuum; it is intrinsically linked to a tapestry of classical and contemporary philosophical roots that shattered the paradigm of the metaphysical Logos and called for the liberation of reason from the illusions and abstractions of preconceived judgments. In this way,it the text travels from the prison of fixed meaning towards a horizon of deferred significations, contingent upon the different depths of the readings it undergoes. Moreover, its foundations are deeply interwoven with epistemic traditions, such as linguistics, structuralism, and psychology, each of which delineated a systematic critical methodology. The aforementioned epistemological foundations contributed to amplifying the voice of deconstructive criticism, establishing it as a modern critical approach that believes in the instability of meaning and its perpetual shedding towards free and unbound significationsthat resisted conventional rules and judgments.
Endnote List
[1]-Jamil, Saliba.The Philosophical Dictionary. 1st ed.,Lebanese Book House, 1982, p 316.
[2]-Derrida, Jacques., Writing and Difference. 1st ed., Translated by Kadhim Jihad, ToubkalPublishing House, Casablanca, 1988, p 31
[3]-Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Anwar Mughith and MunaṬalba, Supreme Council of Culture, Cairo, 2000, p. 12.
[4]-Ḥamuda, Abd al-Aziz. Convex Mirrors: From Structuralism to Deconstruction. 1st ed., World of Knowledge Series, National Council for Culture, Arts, and Letters, Kuwait City, 1998, p. 292.
[5]-Derrida, Jacques., Writing and Difference, p.61
[6]-Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Translated by Abd al-Jalil Jawad, Dialogue Publishing House, Latakia, 1992, p. 7.
[7]-Qaṭus, Bassam. A Guide to Contemporary Critical Theory. Department of Arabic Language, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, 2015, pp. 123.
[8]-Qaṭus, Bassam. A Guide to Contemporary Critical Theory. Department of Arabic Language, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, 2015, pp.124
[9]-Al-Aḥmar, Faysal, Dadwa, Nabil. The Literary Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, Knowledge House, Algiers, 2009, p. 97.
[10]-Derrida, Jacques., Writing and Difference, p.31
[11]-Al-Ashiri, Modern Literary and Critical Trends: A Guide for the General Reader. 2nd ed., Mirit Publishing and Information, Cairo, 2003, pp. 125–126
[12]-Derrida, Jacques., Writing and Difference, p.51
[13]-Qaṭus, Bassam. A Guide to Contemporary Critical Theory. Department of Arabic Language, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, 2015, pp 132-133
[14]-Abd Allah, Adil. Deconstruction: The Will of Difference and the Power of Reason. Al-Hasad Publishing House, Damascus, 2000, pp.99-100.
[15]-Al-Zayn, Muḥammad Shawqi. Interpretations and Deconstructions. 1st ed., Arab Cultural Center, Beirut, 2002, pp. 187–188.
[16]–Tawruiīt, Bashir, Rajih, Samiyya. Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Discourse: A Study of the Origins, Features, and Theoretical and Practical Problems. 1st ed., Raslan Publishing and Distribution House, Damascus, 2008, pp.16-17.
[17]-Tawruiīt, Bashir, Rajih, Samiyya. Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Discourse: A Study of the Origins, Features, and Theoretical and Practical Problems. 1st ed., Raslan Publishing and Distribution House, Damascus, 2008, pp.18 .
[18]-Tawruiīt, Bashir, Rajih, Samiyya. Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Discourse: A Study of the Origins, Features, and Theoretical and Practical Problems. 1st ed., Raslan Publishing and Distribution House, Damascus, 2008, pp.19-20 .
[19]-Abd Allah, Adil. Deconstruction: The Will of Difference and the Power of Reason. Al-Hasad Publishing House, Damascus, 2000, pp. 37
[20]-Qaṭus, Bassam. A Guide to Contemporary Critical Theory. Department of Arabic Language, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, 2015, pp 127-128
References
Arabic References
1-Abd Allah, Adil. Deconstruction: The Will of Difference and the Power of Reason]. Al-Hasad Publishing House, Damascus, 2000..
2-Al-Ahmar, Faysal, Dadwa, Nabil. The Literary Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, Knowledge House, Algiers, 2009.
3-Al-Ashiri, Muhammad. Modern Literary and Critical Trends: A Guide for the General Reader. 2nd ed., Mirit Publishing and Information, Cairo, 2003.
4-Al-Zayn, Shawqi, Muḥammad. Interpretations and Deconstructions. 1st ed., Arab Cultural Center, Beirut, 2002.
5-Hamuda, Abd al-Aziz. Convex Mirrors: From Structuralism to Deconstruction. 1st ed., World of Knowledge Series, National Council for Culture, Arts, and Letters, Kuwait City, 1998.
6-Qatus, Bassam.A Guide to Contemporary Critical Theory]. Department of Arabic Language, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, 2015.
7-Saliba, Jamil. The Philosophical Dictionary. 1st ed., Lebanese Book House, Beirut, 1982.
8-Tawrurit, Bashir, Rajih, Samiyya. Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Discourse: A Study of the Origins, Features, and Theoretical and Practical Problems]. 1st ed., Raslan Publishing and Distribution House, Damascus, 2008.
Translated References
9-Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Translated by Kazim Jihad, 1st ed., Toubkal Publishing House, Casablanca, 1988.
10-Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Anwar Mughith and MunaTalba, Supreme Council of Culture, Cairo, 2000.
11-Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. Translated by Abd al-Jalil Jawad, Dialogue Publishing House, Latakia, 1992.