Redefining Pragmatism within Structuralism: A Complicit Relationship with Différance and Instrumental Idealism
Toward an Instrumental Reading of Différance in Structuralist Theory
Introduction: The Return of Structure, the Descent of Différance
The aim of this paper is to redefine pragmatism not as a relativistic convenience, but as an instrumental idealism that is organically compatible with the logic of différance embedded in structuralism. The classical opposition between moral idealism and utilitarianism often collapses when confronted with structural distortions. In such a context, only instrumental idealism can reconstruct systems while absorbing the contingency of différance.
I. The Triad of Idealism: Duty, Utility, Instrument
We define three layers of idealism:
Deontological Idealism: Principles and duties are supreme. Typical of those who act ethically even when socially disadvantaged.
Utilitarian Idealism: Decisions based on maximizing outcomes. Pragmatic, but sometimes sacrifices intrinsic value.
Instrumental Idealism: Treats principles as tools. Not because they are dispensable, but because they are structurally bound to function and change.
Each of these idealisms responds differently to the appearance of différance. The deontologist resists it. The utilitarian calculates it. The instrumentalist interprets and reconstructs it.
II. Structuralism as an Open System: The Necessity of Tool-Based Thinking
Structuralism, as redefined here, is not a static map of relations, but a dynamic generator that absorbs difference. Différance is not a glitch, but the engine. Systems are not preserved by resisting change but by transforming in response to it.
In this terrain, instrumental idealism proves more than a mindset—it becomes an operating logic. It allows one to grasp and utilize shifting structures without falling into nihilism or nostalgia.
III. The Tragedy of Narcissism: When Différance Is Misread as Collapse
Both deontological and utilitarian idealists often fall into narcissism when confronted with différance. For the former, the loss of principle is equated with moral collapse. For the latter, the loss of efficiency becomes intolerable. Thus, they mistake structural transformation for systemic failure.
Instrumental idealism, by contrast, remains serene. The loss of form is a chance to create a new function. Structural instability is not tragedy—it is a moment for architectural redesign.
IV. Toward a Tool-Based Ethics: Beyond Irony, Beyond Sentiment
The instrumental idealist is not cold or cynical. Rather, they take responsibility for the ongoing transformation of systems. In doing so, they surpass both ironic detachment and sentimental loyalty.
True structural responsibility lies not in maintaining an original blueprint, but in updating its function while preserving its internal coherence. This is ethics as tool, not as cage.
Conclusion: The Complicity of Différance and Pragmatism
Thus, pragmatism—when elevated to instrumental idealism—ceases to be an excuse and becomes a methodology. Within structuralism, it plays the role of translator, restorer, and inventor. The logic of différance is no longer an enemy of idealism, but its co-architect.
In the end, structuralism is not about mapping fixed relations. It is about surviving through transformation. And for that, we need not obedience nor efficiency—but instruments sharp enough to reshape the structure itself.