部份學者指出，自1980 年代開始，由於德希達關注一連串關於民族 主義、女性主義、死刑、民主、好客等議題，因此認為「解構」的晚期發 展與德希達早期著作的風格有所不同，而將此視為「解構」的倫理或政治 轉向。在這脈絡上，有別於認定解構分別呈現出倫理意涵或政治意涵， 甚至存在所謂「轉向」，本文主要工作在於闡釋解構的「倫理－政治」意 涵。透過德希達思考語言活動、認識活動及建制活動的「準先驗」圖式， 本文將其曾反覆論述的「延異」、「痕跡」、「絕境」等語彙，編織成不同的 引線，進而闡釋解構的「倫理－政治」意涵。藉由反覆強調作為準先驗的 「延異」，一方面德希達重新置換了傳統對於「倫理」、「政治」概念的內 涵，另一方面則轉化傳統對於「可能／不可能」的思考。其試圖藉由「他 者」的「殊異性」以非辯證的方式調合西方形上學中關於普遍性與特殊性 衝突與對立，本文認為這正是解構的「倫理－政治」意涵之底蘊。然而， 這卻需要一種關於「也許」的嶄新體驗或思想。

According to some scholars, since the 1980s Jacques Derrida made a deviation from his early-stage works, and engaged in a series of issues such as nationalism, feminism, death penalty, democracy, and hospitality, which represented the ethical turn or political turn of deconstruction. Intending to counter this sort of interpretation, the major task of this essay is to elaborate the “ethico-political” significance of deconstruction through the expressions of “differance,” “trace,” and “aporias,” which are precisely the quasi-transcendental schema in Derrida’s understanding of linguistic, cognitive, and institutive systems. Emphasizing “differance” as “quasi-transcendental schema,” Derrida displaces traditional understandings of “ethics” and “politics,” and transforms the dichotomy of “possibility / impossibility” in traditional thinking. Along with the “quasi-transcendental schema,” Derrida discusses the “singularity” of “the other,” through which he reconciles the traditional conflicts between universality and particularity in a non-dialectical way. Through this interpretation, this essay argues that deconstruction is in itself “ethicopolitically” significant. However, to understand this, it requires the experience or the thought of the perhaps.