Abstract

More Kristeva and Derrida's views on the subject of deconstruction can reveal errors: Since the property of all forms of logocentric dialectics denied the possibility of the main practice. Kristeva and Derrida's theory of the difference between, on the subject of a negative dialectic, and a neutral peace between the different: the former is that the rejection of the update to bring the subject, which has avoided the main issue ; want to drive the former believe that the role of the body, which only recognize the traces; symbol set support the former, the latter chose to detour; former recognize the power of the conflict, which recognizes only the game; the former brought the subject of social practice, which but in the absence of boundaries in the evolution of neutral peace. A comparison of Kristeva and Derrida's different perspectives on subjectivity can shed some light upon the blind spot of deconstruction, which can boiled down to the fact that a reduction of dialectics in all forms to logocentrism denies the possibility of practice on the part of the subject. The difference between them is one that is between a negative dialectics and a neutral peace: the former believes in the power of rejection to shape a renewed subject while the latter eludes the issue of subjectivity; the former believes in the power of carnal drives while the latter only perceives trace; the former is in support of symbolic positioning while the latter prefers detour; the former registers the power of conflicts where the latter only perceives games; And where the former brings the subjective social practice the latter evaluates into neutral peace in infinite différance