The issue of reinforcement always comes up when talking about theory and the breakdown of ideologies. It is on one hand good to bring these systems under examination but on the other it reinforces them just by speaking of them and in their own terms. I read this quote by Derrida in my Environmental ethics class where language and rhetoric are always discussed and I thought it was a keeper.

"Doubtless is it more necc....to transform concepts, to displace them, to turn them against their presuppositions, to re inscribe them in other chairs, and little by little to modify the terrain of our work and thereby produce new configurations, I do not believe in decisive ruptures, in a unequivocal "epistemological break", as it is called today. Breaks are always, and fatally, re inscribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone"

~derrida
(Positions)

You are spelling out one of the critiques or problems that's been found with
deconstruction as a method, and it raises the very interesting issue (to me) of
the different ways deconstruction has been thought. I learned about
deconstruction in school as you've written it here, as the breakdown of
ideologies (power structures) in order to create 'awareness.' (This conforms
to a Marxist view or perhaps a Foucauldian view.) I believed (and I think was
taught to believe) that if people became aware, they would choose to 'be' and
'act' differently', if they understood they were 'existing' and 'being', even
acting on behalf of, a dominant power structure. My job, as an artist, was to
make ideology visible, to make room for us to 'be' "other"-wise. As a
burgeoning artist, it was my job (in whatever small way I could) to enact
liberty from oppression, and the first step was to de-naturalize the systems of
power.

But Derridean deconstruction, as you have also demonstrated here, admits the
problem of dialectics. The nature of dialectics is that whatever one puts forward
automatically and inevitably raises its dialectical opposite in the process.
(Interestingly, Derrida always claimed he was not 'doing' philosophy, he was
not 'making' concepts. In this way, he was able to capitalize on dialectics
without falling into the very trap of reinforcement that you are speaking of.)
Derrida took the notion of dialectics to its limit and asserted that actually
the dialectical opposite comes BEFORE the idea you put forward: A thing comes
into being by first de-privileging what it is NOT. He believed that a close
'reading' of any text could reveal the traces of what was de-privileged, traces
that were always already there to be found.

The first notion of deconstruction (what I learned at school) shares with the
avant-garde a belief that we can liberate those oppressed by ideological power
structures. But Derridean deconstruction cannot consider the possibility of
liberty from oppression, it must be understood as an impossible task, always
already failed.

"I would say that deconstruction loses nothing from admitting that it is
impossible; also that those who would rush to delight in that admission lose
nothing from having to wait. For a deconstructive operation possibility would
rather be a danger, the danger of becoming an available set of rule-governed
procedures, methods, accessible practices. The interest of deconstruction, of
such force and desire as it may have, is a certain experience of the
impossible..." -Derrida

If Derrida is right (and of course this is debatable), I was schooled into
making the cardinal error: Instead of ‘doing’ Derridean deconstruction,
which would have necessitated living with the impossible, I ‘applied’ his
theory for a purpose – something Derrida fought voraciously against
throughout his entire career.

"We now know -- or have no excuse for not knowing -- that deconstruction is not
a technique or a method, and hence that there is no question of "applying"
it.” We know that it is not a moment of carnival or liberation, but a moment
of the deepest concern with limits... And we know -- though this myth perhaps
dies hardest of all -- that the ethical and the political are not avoided by
deconstruction, but are implicated at every step." - Derek Attridge

In Derrida's version, deconstruction is not a dismantling of a text (the way
that we might speak about a breakdown of ideologies) but a demonstration that
it has already dismantled itself. Derridean deconstruction engages in
de-naturalizing structures without constructing something else. He leaves us
in the void that exists where something once pretended to stand.

For me, I struggle with trying to embody this impossibility. I bristle against
having such intense limits placed on my ability to be an active agent of
change. On the other hand, I recognize that those are limits placed upon my
power, and that they inscribe and require an absolute ethics upon my acts.