Derrida: Two Systems of Intrepretation?

I am not sure if I read this correctly, but it seems that Derrida ended his work by identifying that there are only two systems of thought--the centered/total structure and the irrational/play structure.

What confuses me is the passage as a whole is about deconstructing ideas of totality and binaries. By saying that there are only two structures, that implies that there is no play and everything is fixed. He seems to be contradicting himself. How can all other systems be flexible except for these particular systems?

I found Derrida's closing remarks to be instructive on this point, because you're right: the majority of the piece certainly does seem to foreclose other discursive possibilites by setting up an ostensibly pre-existing and immutable binary between totalization and play. At the end, though, he takes something of a Benjamian tact (i.e. a cool but frustrating gesture that is left completely un-fleshed out) when he says: "I employ these words, I admit, with a glance twoard the operations of childbearing - but also with a glance toward those who, in a society from whcih I do not exclude myself, turn their eyes away when faced by the as yet unnamable which is proclaiming itself and which can do so, as is necessary whenever birth is in the offing, only under the specied of the nonspecies, in the formless, mute, infant, and terrifying form of monstrosity" (293).
What I took from this is that Derrida is trying (in principle, at least) to make his comments on structurality productive instead of static. His formal critique should not be taken as an end in itself, but rather as a vehicle for generating ("birthing") new-to-the-point-of-monstrous possibilities for discourse. Sure, it's kind of feeble. But perhaps we can *redeem* Derrida by suggesting that concrete practice and intervention need to fill in the gaps here, that the production of new, politically viable philosophical schemas ("child-bearing") can never be a task for theoreticians alone.

I agree with what you said. What I got out of that last paragraph was trying to get people to accept that the world isnt as clear cut, as black and white, despite how easy it is to think that way.

I viewed the childbearing and the monstrosity he was referring to as the product of the two systems. Obviously, mixing a rational/centered system with an irrational/decentered system is not going to produce a refined product (there seems to be a tie in with the incest he was referring to earlier). Despite how grotesque it is, I believe Derrida is asking to approach it headon and acknowledge its existence, acknowledge that the world is not going to be simple and pristine.

Well put.