Hubbry Logo
LogocentrismLogocentrismMain
Open search
Logocentrism
Community hub
Logocentrism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Logocentrism
Logocentrism
Logocentrism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

"Logocentrism" is a term coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the early 1900s.[1] It refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. It holds the logos as epistemologically superior and that there is an original, irreducible object which the logos represent. According to logocentrism, the logos is the ideal representation of the Platonic ideal.

In linguistics

[edit]

According to Jacques Derrida, with the logos as the site of a representational unity, linguistics dissects the structure of the logos further and establishes the sound of the word, coupled with the sense of the word, as the original and ideal location of metaphysical significance. Logocentric linguistics proposes that "the immediate and privileged unity which founds significance and the acts of language is the articulated unity of sound and sense within the phonic."[2] As the science of language, linguistics is a science by way of this semiotic phonology. It follows, therefore, that speech is the primary form of language and that writing is secondary, representative, and, importantly, outside of speech. Writing is a "sign of a sign"[3] and, therefore, is basically phonetic.

Jonathan Culler in his book Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction says:

Traditionally, Western philosophy has distinguished "reality" from "appearance," things themselves from representations of them, and thought from signs that express it. Signs or representations, in this view, are but a way to get at reality, truth, or ideas, and they should be as transparent as possible; they should not get in the way, should not affect or infect the thought or truth they represent. In this framework, speech has seemed the immediate manifestation or presence of thought, while writing, which operates in the absence of the speaker, has been treated as an artificial and derivative representation of speech, a potentially misleading sign of a sign (p. 11).

This notion that the written word is a sign of a sign has a long history in Western thought. According to Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words."[4] Jean-Jacques Rousseau similarly states, "Writing is nothing but the representation of speech; it is bizarre that one gives more care to the determining of the image than to the object."[5]

Derrida’s critique of logocentrism examines the limitations of linguistic systems that prioritize speech over writing and assume a direct, stable connection between language and meaning. He argues that traditional linguistics fails to be "general" as it remains bound by rigid distinctions—between inside and outside, essence and fact—which prevent a complete understanding of language's structure.

For Derrida, writing isn't merely a secondary "image" or representation of speech; rather, it challenges the very notion of a pure linguistic core. He suggests that if signs always refer to other signs, then writing is inherent within language itself, not a detached representation. This concept undermines the idea of language as a transparent tool for representing a stable reality.

Derrida identifies this bias, logocentrism, as central to Western metaphysical thought, which privileges "presence" and direct expression in speech. This bias has stifled deeper inquiry into writing's origin and role, reducing it to a mere technical tool rather than acknowledging it as fundamental to meaning-making. Consequently, logocentrism restricts linguistic theory, making it impossible to fully explore the complex, interconnected nature of language and writing. [6]

Saussure

[edit]

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), it is claimed by Derrida, follows this logocentric line of thought in the development of his linguistic sign and its terminology. Where the word remains known as the whole sign, the unification of concept and sound-image becomes the unification of the signified and the signifier respectively.[7] The signifier is then composed of an indivisible sound and image whereby the graphic form of the sign is exterior.

According to Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics, "The linguistic object is not defined by the combination of the written word and the spoken word: the spoken form alone constitutes the object."[8] Language has, he writes, "an oral tradition that is independent of writing."[9]

Derrida

[edit]

French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) in his book Of Grammatology responds in depth to what he believes is Saussure's logocentric argument. Derrida deconstructs the apparent inner, phonological system of language, stating in Chapter 2, Linguistics and Grammatology, that in fact and for reasons of essence Saussure's representative determination is "...an ideal explicitly directing a functioning which...is never completely phonetic".[10] The idea that writing might function other than phonetically and also as more than merely a representative delineation of speech allows an absolute concept of logos to end in what Derrida describes as infinitist metaphysics.[11] The difference in presence can never actually be reduced, as was the logocentric project; instead, the chain of signification becomes the trace of presence-absence.[12]

That the signified is originarily and essentially (and not only for a finite and created spirit) trace, that it is always already in the position of the signifier, is the apparently innocent proposition within which the metaphysics of the logos, of presence and consciousness, must reflect upon writing as its death and its resource.[13]

In literary theory

[edit]

Inherent in Saussure's reasoning, a structuralist approach to literature began in the 1950s [14] to assess the literary text, or utterance, in terms of its adherence to certain organising conventions which might establish its objective meaning. Again, as for Saussure, structuralism in literary theory is condemned to fail on account of its own foundation: '...language constitutes our world, it doesn't just record it or label it. Meaning is always attributed to the object or idea by the human mind, and constructed by and expressed through language: it is not already contained within the thing'.[15]

There is no absolute truth outside of construction no matter how scientific or prolific that construction might be. Enter Derrida and post-structuralism. Other like-minded philosophers and psychoanalysts who have notably opposed logocentrism are Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Freud, as well as those who have been influenced by them in this vein.[16] Literary critic Roland Barthes (1915–1980), with his essay The Death of the Author (1968), converted from structuralism to post-structuralism.

For the post-structuralist the writer must be present in a kind of absence, or 'dead', according to Barthes; just as the reader is absent in a kind of presence at the 'moment' of the literary utterance. Post-structuralism is therefore against the moral formalism of the Western literary tradition which maintains only The Greats should be looked to for literary inspiration and indeed for a means of political control and social equilibrium.

Modernism, with its desire to regain some kind of lost presence, also resists post-structuralist thought; whereas Post-modernism accepts the loss (the loss of being as 'presence') and steps beyond the limitations of logocentrism.

In non-Western cultures

[edit]

Some researchers consider that logocentrism may not be something which exists across all cultures, but instead has a particular bias in Western culture. Dennis Tedlock's study of stories in the Quiché Maya culture[17] leads him to suggest that the development of alphabetic writing systems may have led to a logocentric perspective, but this is not the case in all writing systems, and particularly less prevalent in cultures where writing has not been established. Tedlock writes, "The voice is linear, in [Derrida's] view; there is only one thing happening at a time, a sequence of phonemes,"[18] and this is reflected in writing and even the study of language in the field of linguistics and what Tedlock calls "mythologics (or larger-scale structuralism)",[19] "are founded not upon a multidimensional apprehension of the multidimensional voice, but upon unilinear writing of the smallest-scale articulations within the voice."[20] This one-dimensionality of writing means that only words can be represented through alphabetic writing, and, more often than not, tone, voice, accent and style are difficult if not impossible to represent. Geaney,[21] in writing about ming (names) in early Chinese reveals that ideographic writing systems present some difficulty for the idea of logocentrism, and that even Derrida wrote of Chinese writing in an ambivalent way, assuming firstly that "writing has a historical telos in which phonetic writing is the normal 'outcome'",[22] but also "speculat[ing] without irony about Chinese writing as a 'movement of civilization outside all logocentrism'".[23]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Logocentrism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Logocentrism denotes the metaphysical commitment in to a central, self-present logos—understood as reason, truth, or full meaning—as the originating structure of language and thought. Coined critically by in his deconstructive analyses, it highlights the tradition's hierarchical privileging of immediate presence, particularly in the form of speech, over deferred or absent forms like writing. This concept forms a core target of Derrida's , exposing how such assumptions underpin binary oppositions (e.g., presence/absence, speech/writing) that sustain illusions of stable, unmediated access to reality. Derrida elaborates logocentrism in seminal works such as (1967) and Voice and Phenomenon (1967), linking it to a broader "" inherited from through Husserl and beyond, where meaning is presumed fully actualized in the speaker's interiority. He argues that even the phenomenological ideal of "hearing-oneself-speak" as pure self-presence harbors traces of difference and deferral (), undermining the logocentric hierarchy. Deconstruction, Derrida's method, does not reject reason outright but inverts and displaces these oppositions to reveal their undecidable interdependence, challenging the notion of fixed origins or transcendental signifieds. While logocentrism critiques have profoundly influenced , , and postmodern thought—often framing Western rationality as inherently exclusionary—the term remains contentious among analytic philosophers and rationalists who defend as essential to empirical inquiry and causal explanation, viewing Derrida's approach as overly skeptical of structured meaning. Its emphasis on writing's primacy has spurred reevaluations of non-Western scripts and oral traditions, yet empirical data on and continue to affirm speech's foundational role in , complicating deconstructive reversals.

Definition and Core Concepts

Etymology and Basic Definition

The term logocentrism derives from the Greek logos (λόγος), denoting "word," "reason," or "ordering principle," combined with kentron (κέντρον), meaning "center" or "point of ." It was first coined in German as Logozentrismus by philosopher and psychologist around 1920–1923, in works critiquing the excessive prioritization of abstract rational over vital, expressive life forces (Bildungstrieb or formative drives) in intellectual traditions. Klages, a proponent of , employed the term to highlight what he saw as a distorting emphasis on logical that marginalized intuitive, bodily, and dimensions of existence. In its foundational philosophical usage, logocentrism refers to the that coherent meaning and truth emerge from a stable, originating —a rational or present in thought itself—serving as the fixed for interpreting reality. This entails viewing speech as more immediate and faithful to inner thought than writing, which is treated as a secondary representation prone to distortion, thereby anchoring in direct rational presence rather than deferred mediation. Such a framework underpins Western philosophy's longstanding commitment to reason as the reliable instrument for discerning objective , from logical deduction to metaphysical foundations, independent of later deconstructions framing it as illusory . The underpins logocentric philosophy by assuming that truth manifests fully and immediately through , the rational principle enabling direct apprehension of reality without mediation or deferral. This view holds that meaning resides transparently within the conscious subject, where thought aligns unproblematically with its verbal expression, allowing to serve as the conduit for stable, self-evident essences. Phonocentrism emerges as a specific instantiation of this metaphysics, elevating (phōnē) above writing due to its supposed immediacy in linking to interior . In phonocentric terms, the voice embodies the living presence of the speaker's psyche, rendering speech a transparent for truth that writing inevitably supplements and thus dilutes through spatial separation and potential misinterpretation. Logocentric frameworks further organize meaning through hierarchical binary oppositions, such as presence/absence or speech/writing, where the prioritized term (e.g., presence) anchors signification by suppressing its counterpart. These structures presume that meaning stabilizes via the dominance of immediate, self-present elements over absent or mediated ones, thereby enabling systematic representation of phenomena. Such assumptions ground language's capacity to depict verifiable causal relations, treating as a tool that mirrors objective structures of through precise of present entities and their interactions. In this conception, verbal signs correspond directly to empirical referents, supporting inquiries into causation by privileging expressions that evoke unmediated perceptual or rational access to events and sequences.

Historical Development

Ancient Greek Foundations

The concept of , central to logocentrism's ancient roots, emerged in as a rational principle ordering the . of (c. 535–475 BCE) described logos as the eternal, underlying structure that unifies opposites and governs flux, asserting that "all things come to pass in accordance with this logos," which humans often fail to comprehend despite its ubiquity. This view prefigured a knowable accessible through rational insight, contrasting chaotic appearances with an intelligible harmony. Stoic philosophers, beginning with (c. 334–262 BCE), expanded into a pervasive cosmic reason or divine fire animating the universe, equating it with (nature) and nous (intellect) to explain providential order and ethical living in alignment with universal law. They held that human reason participates in this logos spermatikos (seminal reason), enabling through conformity to rational necessity, thus embedding as both metaphysical foundation and epistemic tool. In Plato's Phaedrus (c. 370 BCE), manifests in the privileging of dialectical speech over writing, critiqued as a mere image lacking vitality and responsiveness; argues that written texts feign wisdom but cannot defend or adapt themselves, whereas living discourse through question-and-answer ascends to eternal Forms and truth. This hierarchy underscores as dynamic reason, essential for philosophical inquiry's pursuit of unchanging realities beyond sensory illusion. Aristotle (384–322 BCE), in works comprising the (compiled c. 350 BCE), formalized as the discursive structure of propositions, definitions, and syllogisms, providing systematic tools for demonstrative knowledge and causal explanation. His logic emphasized in analyzing essences and efficient/formal causes, as in , where scientific understanding derives from grasping necessary principles via reasoned deduction from observables. These frameworks grounded Greek rationalism, fostering empirical observation and first-principles deduction that propelled advancements in , , and .

Developments from Medieval to Modern Philosophy

In the medieval era, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) synthesized Aristotelian logos—the rational ordering principle of the cosmos—with Christian theology's Verbum, the eternal Word of God as articulated in John 1:1. This integration, detailed in his Summa Theologica (c. 1265–1274), posited that divine truth is present and apprehensible through both scriptural revelation and human reason, which participates in the divine intellect via natural law and syllogistic demonstration. Aquinas's framework thereby reinforced a metaphysics of presence, where intelligible essences in created things mirror unmediated eternal forms, enabling theological and philosophical certainty without reliance on deferred signification. The and Enlightenment extended this tradition through rationalist emphases on immediate self-evidence. (1596–1650), in (1641), established the as an indubitable foundation of knowledge, privileging the direct presence of the thinking self to itself amid hyperbolic doubt, thereby grounding in transparent over external signs or mediation. (1724–1804), building on this in (1781), introduced a system of a priori categories—such as and substance—that impose stable structures on sensory manifold, assuming the mind's synthetic unity yields necessary, present conditions for objective experience rather than contingent or absent interpretations. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) culminated modern logocentrism in a dynamic yet rationalist dialectic, portraying logos as the historical unfolding of Absolute Spirit (Geist) toward self-realization. In Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel described this process as thesis-antithesis-synthesis, where contradictions resolve into higher rational syntheses, manifesting Spirit's progressive self-presence in world history and culminating in philosophical science (Wissenschaft) that comprehends reality as inherently logical and knowable without irreducible deferral. This dialectical logos prioritized empirical-historical verification over mystical or apophatic absence, aligning with causal realism by treating contradictions as resolvable through reason's immanent necessity. Such logocentric commitments underpinned verifiable scientific progress, as seen in Isaac Newton's (1687), which formulated universal laws of motion and gravitation through axiomatic deduction from observed phenomena, presupposing a , rationally accessible amenable to precise prediction and causal explanation. Newton's , reliant on clear mathematical presence rather than interpretive play, enabled empirical successes like orbital calculations, demonstrating how assumptions of foundational truth-presence drove mechanistic models that withstood testing until the .

Structuralism in the Early 20th Century

Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, compiled from his lectures delivered between 1907 and 1911 and published posthumously in 1916, established the foundational principles of structural linguistics by defining the linguistic sign as an indissoluble union of the signifier (a sound-image) and the signified (a mental concept), linked arbitrarily but stabilized within the synchronic system of langue (the underlying language structure) as opposed to parole (individual speech acts). This model emphasized relational differences among signs over their historical development, positing a self-regulating system amenable to systematic, ahistorical analysis that presumed transparent access to meaning through structural mapping. Saussure's framework facilitated empirical by prioritizing synchronic description, enabling researchers to identify invariant rules governing sign relations without recourse to diachronic , thereby treating as a formal object of scientific akin to a logical order. In this pre-deconstructive era, such structural privileging was regarded as a methodological advance, supporting precise, verifiable analyses of linguistic phenomena and laying groundwork for extensions into adjacent fields. Extending Saussure's principles beyond linguistics, Claude Lévi-Strauss applied structural methods to anthropology in works like Structural Anthropology (1958), employing binary oppositions—such as raw/cooked or nature/culture—to decode underlying mental invariances in myths, kinship systems, and rituals across cultures. These binaries assumed a universal cognitive logic organizing human experience, reflecting a commitment to uncovering stable, presence-based hierarchies that enabled comparative, rule-governed interpretations of cultural data. Saussure's ideas, disseminated through European linguistic circles, profoundly shaped the Parisian intellectual milieu from the late 1940s onward, culminating in structuralism's dominance during the 1950s and , where it fostered interdisciplinary rigor in analyzing as components of autonomous systems. This era viewed as empowering objective, evidence-based insights into human cognition and , with logocentric-like assumptions—privileging ordered presence over flux—implicitly underpinning the quest for foundational structures without yet facing explicit metaphysical challenge.

Derrida's Formulation and Deconstruction

Influence of Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure's , compiled from his lectures and published posthumously in , introduced the dyadic model of the linguistic sign, comprising a signifier (the sound-image) and a signified (the conceptual content), with their linkage characterized as arbitrary rather than natural or motivated. This framework, while emphasizing the conventional nature of signs, presupposes a stable correspondence between signifier and signified that Derrida later identified as implying a , wherein meaning appears fully accessible and self-evident within the synchronic structure of language, thereby sustaining logocentric assumptions of transparent ideality. Saussure's methodological preference for synchronic —examining as a fixed at a given moment—over diachronic study of its historical further aligned with logocentric priorities, privileging the presumed stability and internal coherence of linguistic presence against temporal and change. This approach formalized as a self-regulating totality, empirically effective for delineating paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations but limited in addressing inherent undecidability or slippage in signification without recourse to an anchoring of rational presence. Saussure's phonocentrism, evident in his treatment of (parole) as the authentic origin of signification and writing (écriture) as a mere secondary representation prone to , reinforced logocentric hierarchies by positing speech as immediate and unmediated access to thought. These elements, while advancing through precise systemic modeling, inadvertently provided the ground for Derrida's critique in , where Saussure's framework is dissected as a modern manifestation of phonocentric and logocentric biases embedded in Western metaphysics. Scholars have contested the accuracy of Derrida's portrayal, arguing it reconstructs Saussure to fit deconstructive aims rather than reflecting the original texts' nuances on and writing's role.

Derrida's Key Arguments and Works

In (1967), Derrida argues that Western metaphysics exhibits logocentrism through a persistent privileging of speech () over writing, positing the former as an immediate emanation of presence and truth while subordinating the latter to a derivative, distorting role. This phonocentrism, he claims, sustains a broader "" wherein meaning is presumed self-contained and originary, suppressing the inherent instability of signification derived from —a coined term blending spatial difference and temporal deferral, which reveals signs as perpetually reliant on absent others rather than fixed essences. Central to this critique are concepts like the trace, denoting residual marks of erasure and iteration that haunt any claim to pure presence, and arché-trace, an originary non-origin of inscription predating logos or speech, which Derrida posits as disrupting myths of foundational stability in philosophical discourse. He deploys sous rature (under erasure)—crossing out terms like "presence" while retaining them—to expose their complicity in logocentric hierarchies without fully discarding language's structure. These mechanisms aim to demonstrate logocentrism not as inherent truth but as a constructed masking textual play. Derrida elaborated these ideas across 1960s texts, including (1967), amid France's pre-1968 intellectual shifts toward anti-structuralist skepticism, with his critiques gaining traction in 1970s post-structuralist circles often aligned with left-leaning critiques of authority following the upheavals.

Mechanisms of Deconstructive Critique

Deconstructive critique targets logocentric binaries, such as speech versus writing or presence versus absence, by first acknowledging the traditional that privileges the former in each pair, then provisionally reversing it to reveal the interdependence and undecidability between terms. This reversal does not aim to establish writing or absence as superior but to demonstrate how the privileged term relies on its supposed subordinate for its meaning, thereby displacing any stable center and exposing the constructed nature of logocentric presence. In (1967), Derrida illustrates this through the speech/writing opposition, arguing that writing is not merely a secondary representation but a condition that haunts speech's claim to immediate self-presence, as phonetic scripts presuppose iterable marks independent of speaker intention. A core mechanism involves reading texts for aporias—points of logical or internal contradiction—that undermine the text's own logocentric assumptions. These aporias arise when a purporting self-sufficient presence inadvertently reveals traces of absence or deferral, fracturing the of foundational stability. Derrida employs this to how philosophical texts, despite aiming for transparent meaning, generate undecidable tensions that cannot be resolved within their own terms, thus highlighting the metaphysics of presence's inherent instability rather than resolving it through further logocentric appeals. The concept of supplementarity exemplifies this process in Derrida's analysis of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's works. In Rousseau's Confessions and Emile, the supplement—such as writing as a "dangerous supplement" to speech or a wet nurse's milk to maternal nourishment—appears as an additive aid to an originary lack, yet simultaneously substitutes for and reveals the origin's fundamental incompleteness. Derrida shows that this logic of the supplement, both excess and replacement, erodes Rousseau's ideal of self-presence, as the origin depends on what it excludes, propagating an infinite chain of deferrals that defies closure. This mechanism displaces logocentrism not by negation but by tracing how texts self-deconstruct through their reliance on supplementary structures. Empirically, deconstruction's focus on textual undecidability limits its capacity to produce falsifiable predictions or causal models, unlike logocentric frameworks that enable verifiable outcomes, such as ' accurate forecasting of behavior in experiments since the 1920s. Deconstruction prioritizes interpretive displacement over hypothesis-testing, yielding no equivalent to scientific paradigms' predictive successes, like general relativity's confirmation via the 1919 observations. This methodological divergence underscores deconstruction's confinement to hermeneutic critique, unable to generate empirical causal realism testable against observational data.

Criticisms, Defenses, and Philosophical Debates

Postmodern and Post-Structuralist Critiques

Post-structuralist extensions of critiques against logocentrism frame it not merely as a linguistic or metaphysical bias but as a mechanism embedded in regimes of power and exclusion. Michel Foucault, diverging from Derrida's textual focus, analyzed logocentric privileges—such as the valorization of transparent reason and presence—as discursive constructs arising from historical epistemes that regulate what counts as knowledge. In The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969), Foucault argued that such structures enforce normative truths through institutional power, rendering logocentrism a tool for marginalizing alternative discourses rather than a timeless philosophical error. Foucault's later engagements, particularly in 1970s exchanges and posthumously published lectures, underscored internal limits in deconstructive approaches to logocentrism, critiquing their ahistorical abstraction. For instance, in reconsidering Plato's exclusion of writing, Foucault contended that Derrida overstated logocentrism's role, attributing it instead to pragmatic exercises in (truth-telling) and self-formation, thus revealing deconstruction's tendency to dissolve historical specificity into endless textual play. This highlighted a tension: while both targeted logocentrism's claim to stable meaning, Foucault's genealogical method prioritized causal contingencies of power over Derrida's undecidability, exposing deconstruction's potential detachment from empirical historical sequences. Feminist post-structuralists radicalized these attacks by recasting logocentrism as , a patriarchal imposition that subordinates embodied, affective knowledge to abstract rationality. Thinkers like and contended that logocentric binaries (e.g., speech/writing, mind/body) encode male dominance, suppressing "feminine" écriture or mimetic disruption as viable alternatives to phallic . Postcolonial theorists, drawing on , similarly deconstructed logocentrism's binaries (e.g., colonizer/colonized, rational/irrational) as Eurocentric impositions sustaining imperial hierarchies, with figures like Gayatri Spivak using it to interrogate subaltern silencing within Western reason. These extensions normalize logocentrism as an originary metaphysics of , enabling social stratifications by naturalizing a singular, hierarchical truth. Such critiques, however, harbor inconsistencies, as they deploy logocentric tools—coherent argumentation and textual analysis—to dismantle itself, yielding self-undermining where no critique can claim privileged validity. This has permeated scholarship, correlating with epistemic shifts toward interpretive pluralism over falsifiable claims, amid documented declines: U.S. humanities bachelor's degrees fell 25% from 2012 to 2020, with majors comprising under 10% of graduates by 2021, partly attributed to postmodern theory's erosion of canonical standards and objective metrics.

Rationalist and Analytic Defenses

John Searle critiqued Jacques Derrida's deconstructive approach in his 1977 essay "Reiterating the Differences," arguing that Derrida misconstrues J.L. Austin's speech act theory by treating iterability—the repeatability of linguistic signs—as incompatible with intentionality, when in fact intentional states ground the meaning and felicity conditions of utterances. Searle contended that successful communication requires the speaker's deliberate intention directed toward a stable referent, enabling hearer uptake and shared understanding, rather than dissolving into endless deferral; without this logos-centered structure, speech acts would lack normative force and pragmatic efficacy. This defense posits intentionality as a brute psychological fact, verifiable through ordinary language analysis, countering deconstruction's claim that meaning is inherently unstable or citation-dependent. Jürgen Habermas advanced a rationalist bulwark against deconstruction through his theory of communicative action, outlined in works like The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), where he upholds the presuppositions of discourse ethics: participants assume validity claims of propositional truth, normative rightness, and sincerity, oriented toward mutual consensus via rational argumentation. In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985), Habermas charged Derrida with performative self-contradiction, as deconstructive texts invoke argumentative reason to subvert it, thereby relying on the very logocentric architecture—stable reference to an intersubjective world—that différance seeks to dismantle. Habermas's universal pragmatics thus rehabilitates as indispensable for uncoerced deliberation, contrasting relativistic undecidability with the causal efficacy of reason in resolving disagreements through evidence and inference. Analytic philosophers have further defended logocentrism by linking it to the referential stability underpinning and empirical progress. For instance, the capacity of physical theories to predict phenomena, such as the 1919 solar eclipse confirmation of general relativity's light-bending effect observed by Arthur Eddington's expedition, presumes linguistic terms stably denote mind-independent entities and causal relations, allowing deductive chains from axioms to testable outcomes. Deconstruction's undecidability, by contrast, renders such predictions unfalsifiable, as it precludes fixed truth conditions; analytic responses, exemplified in Hilary Putnam's internal realism (1981), affirm that succeeds via indexical chains to the world, enabling science's iterative refinements without metaphysical . This causal orientation—prioritizing explanations grounded in observable mechanisms over interpretive play—vindicates as the engine of verifiable accumulation, evident in milestones like the 2012 detection at , which validated the Standard Model's predictions after decades of logocentric theorizing.

Empirical and Causal Critiques of Deconstruction

Analytic philosophers, including W.V.O. Quine and Donald Davidson, have critiqued deconstruction's portrayal of linguistic indeterminacy as overly radical, arguing instead that semantic holism constrains meanings through interconnected beliefs and empirical evidence, thereby preserving referential stability without invoking a metaphysics of perpetual deferral or absence. Quine's thesis of translational indeterminacy, detailed in his 1960 work Word and Object, applies narrowly to isolated terms under inscrutability of reference but is mitigated by the holistic "web of belief," where revisions maintain overall coherence and empirical adequacy. Davidson extended this via radical interpretation, emphasizing the principle of charity—which maximizes agreement on beliefs and translates sentences as true where possible—to anchor meanings in shared causal interactions with the world, directly challenging deconstruction's infinite play of signifiers detached from stable referents. The 1996 Sokal Affair provided a causal demonstration of deconstruction-influenced postmodernism's vulnerabilities to unsubstantiated claims, as physicist submitted a deliberately nonsensical paper to —a journal aligned with anti-logocentric —that mimicked Derridean rhetoric, such as denying fixed scientific constants, and was accepted without rigor. and Jean Bricmont's subsequent analysis in (1997) dissected Derrida's appropriations of and physics, revealing causal errors like conflating relativity's frame-dependence with arbitrary textual instability, which undermined credibility in fields reliant on verifiable predictions. This causally exposed how deconstruction's rejection of logocentric hierarchies fosters tolerance for epistemic laxity, as evidenced by the journal's failure to detect fabrications despite their contradiction of established scientific referentiality. In and , empirical evidence favors logocentric approaches incorporating explicit referential structures over purely differential models akin to Saussurean-Derridean sign systems without fixed signifieds. systems, blending neural with symbolic rule-based reasoning, have outperformed pure neural networks— which rely on without inherent causal hierarchies—in tasks demanding structured , achieving exact solutions for differential equations where neural baselines approximate poorly and superior accuracy in by 10-20% on benchmarks like visual QA. For instance, in , neuro-symbolic methods integrate symbolic constraints to exceed pure neural performance by resolving ambiguities through referential logic, mirroring how human cognition employs stable representations for as shown in psycholinguistic experiments on resolution. Deconstruction's relativist implications have faced causal critique for eroding shared referential grounds, empirically correlating with diminished social cohesion in applications to , where denial of objective hierarchies privileges fluid interpretations over unified truths. Analyses of postmodern link it to fragmented , as multicultural paradigms grounded in such views reduce norms to incommensurable differences, evidenced by sociological studies showing relativist epistemologies correlate with lower trust metrics in diverse societies (e.g., Putnam's 2007 findings on ethnic diversity and reduced cohesion, extended to interpretive ). This causal chain—from textual indeterminacy to societal unmooring—manifests in ' prioritization of power-laden over empirical verifiability, yielding policies detached from measurable outcomes like integration success rates.

Applications and Broader Influence

In Linguistics and Semiotics

In linguistics, logocentrism manifests through frameworks that prioritize stable, hierarchical structures underlying language, akin to a universal enabling predictive rules for syntax and meaning. Noam Chomsky's , introduced in (1957), exemplifies this by positing innate with deep structures that generate surface forms via explicit transformational rules, allowing empirical testing of syntactic hierarchies observed in child and cross-linguistic patterns. These structures assume a presence of fixed competence beneath performance variability, contrasting deconstructive emphases on endless deferral of meaning, and have facilitated verifiable advances like hierarchical phrase-based models in computational syntax. In , logocentric tendencies align with Charles Sanders Peirce's triadic model of the —comprising representamen, object, and interpretant—which incorporates direct referential links through and indexical relations, grounding meaning in existential presence rather than arbitrary difference. This differs from Ferdinand de Saussure's dyadic (signifier-signified), where value arises solely from systemic oppositions without inherent ties to reality, a foundation later amplified in to undermine stable reference. Peirce's approach supports causal realism in interpretation, as interpretants evolve through abduction and habit but retain anchoring to objects, enabling empirical semiotic analysis in fields like . Deconstructive critiques, extending Saussurean relationality, have influenced some linguistic models by rejecting fixed centers, yet they yield less predictive outcomes in computational applications compared to logocentric assumptions of compositional stability. For instance, efforts to implement différance-like indeterminacy in semantics struggle with formal verifiability, whereas systems succeed by modeling meaning-preserving transformations via vector embeddings that encode stable semantic roles, achieving scores exceeding 30 on benchmarks like WMT since the . This empirical edge underscores how logocentric priors—positing retrievable, context-invariant cores—drive practical efficacy in tasks like bilingual alignment, where pure deferral models falter in causal prediction.

In Literary and Cultural Theory

, dominant in Anglo-American literary studies from the 1930s to the 1950s, embodied logocentric principles through its insistence on the text's autonomous unity and fixed interpretive core. W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley's 1946 essay "The Intentional Fallacy" formalized this by dismissing authorial biography or intent as irrelevant, locating meaning instead in the verbal artifact's formal structure and dramatic irony, thereby positing a centered, recoverable embedded in the work itself. Such methods supported rigorous close readings that dissected tensions within texts to reveal organic wholes, enabling causal analysis of how linguistic elements generate narrative coherence. Jacques Derrida challenged these assumptions as extensions of logocentrism, which suppresses the endless play of signifiers and —the perpetual deferral and difference in meaning—favoring illusory presence over textual ambiguity. In literary application, counters logocentric stability by foregrounding aporias, where binaries like literal/figurative collapse into undecidability. Paul de Man and the Yale School advanced this in the 1970s and 1980s, applying deconstructive techniques to canonical texts; de Man argued that rhetorical tropes, such as prosopopeia, expose allegory's self-subverting nature, rendering referential meaning inherently unstable and rhetorical rather than representational. These readings prioritized intra-textual materiality, often bracketing historical production contexts to emphasize linguistic blindness. Critics of de Man's method, including those advocating causal realism, faulted it for severing texts from verifiable historical chains—such as authorial decisions or cultural determinants—that empirically shape interpretive norms, reducing to ahistorical indeterminacy. Logocentrism's strength lies in yielding reproducible analyses of plot and thematic resolution, as seen in New Critical exegeses; deconstruction's insight into enriches polysemous appreciation but risks overstatement, given empirical reader-response showing convergence on shared textual inferences across diverse audiences, rather than boundless deferral.

Political, Ethical, and Scientific Implications

Logocentrism underpins ethical frameworks that derive universal moral norms from rational discourse, as articulated in Jürgen Habermas's theory of , where validity claims are tested through uncoerced argumentation aimed at mutual understanding and consensus on principles applicable beyond particular contexts. This approach contrasts with deconstructive critiques, which, by destabilizing fixed meanings and hierarchies inherent in logocentric thought, have been philosophically linked to an erosion of absolute ethical standards, fostering interpretive indeterminacy that critics contend enables by denying objective grounds for normative judgments. Such relativism, proponents of rationalist argue, undermines the capacity for cross-cultural agreement on , as seen in debates where prioritizes contextual over universal logos-derived imperatives. Politically, defenses of logocentrism highlight its role in fostering cohesive through reason-based deliberation, whereas anti-logocentric postmodern influences are critiqued for promoting , which fragments political discourse into group-specific narratives detached from shared rational criteria. traces this to postmodern skepticism's rejection of objective reality, arguing it sustains collectivist ideologies by recasting power dynamics as linguistic constructs, empirically correlating with heightened societal polarization in Western democracies since the late , where policy debates devolve into zero-sum identity competitions rather than evidence-based compromises. This fragmentation has been associated with challenges, such as stalled legislative progress on issues like and in the United States during the , where relativized truth claims exacerbated partisan gridlock over universalist principles. In scientific domains, logocentrism supports methodologies emphasizing and empirical objectivity, aligning with Karl Popper's criterion that scientific claims must be testable and refutable through rational scrutiny, thereby privileging logos as a tool for approximating truth independent of subjective interpretation. Critiques of deconstructive extensions into , exemplified by the 1996 —in which physicist submitted a deliberately nonsensical parody article blending quantum physics with postmodern relativism to the journal Social Text, which accepted it without rigorous —reveal tendencies toward pseudointellectualism, where scientific concepts are appropriated to advance unfalsifiable ideological narratives rather than causal explanations. This event underscored vulnerabilities in postmodern approaches, prompting defenses of logocentric objectivity as essential for technological advancements, such as the verifiable predictions enabling GPS accuracy to within meters via , unachievable under relativistic epistemologies that equate all knowledge paradigms. Western legal traditions exemplify logocentrism's practical stability, particularly in systems where contracts and precedents are interpreted through rational discourse to ensure predictability and equity, as in English courts' reliance on stare decisis since the to bind decisions to reasoned consistency. This approach has sustained institutional resilience, with data showing lower contract dispute volatility in jurisdictions compared to civil law counterparts during economic crises like the 2008 financial meltdown, attributing durability to logos-driven over discretionary . Deconstructive influences in legal theory, however, risk destabilizing this by questioning textual fixity, potentially eroding enforcement of universal covenants in favor of contextual reinterpretations.

Non-Western and Comparative Perspectives

Analogues in Eastern Philosophies

In , the school, formalized in the attributed to Akṣapāda Gautama around the 2nd century BCE, treats śabda (verbal testimony) as one of four pramāṇas (valid means of knowledge), relying on the inherent reliability of authoritative words to convey stable truths about reality, which echoes logocentrism's assumption of presence in linguistic structure. 's emphasis on logical inference (anumāna) and categorization of entities (padārthas) further underscores a commitment to rational order and verifiable cognition, presupposing that and can access unchanging essences rather than mere deferral. This realist contrasts with deconstructive by prioritizing empirical validation through debate and testimony, as seen in classical texts like the , which outline syllogistic reasoning to resolve disputes over presence and meaning. Confucian thought, originating with (551–479 BCE), centers on li (ritual propriety or patterned principle) as a rational framework aligning human conduct with cosmic order, functioning analogously to by imposing coherent structure on social and metaphysical relations. In the , li denotes not arbitrary convention but an objective pattern (as later elaborated in by , 1130–1200 CE, who prioritized li as transcendent principle over material force qi), enabling predictable harmony through prescriptive rites that assume stable meanings in roles and hierarchies. This yields a causal realism where adherence to li generates verifiable social stability, as evidenced in historical applications during the (206 BCE–220 CE), when Confucian orthodoxy standardized governance via ritual codes presumed to reflect eternal patterns. Daoist philosophy, traced to Laozi's Daodejing (circa 6th century BCE), presents a counterpoint through the (ineffable way) and (effortless non-action), rejecting logocentric fixation on named essences in favor of fluid, nameless becoming that defies stable presence. The text's opening declares, "The that can be spoken is not the eternal ," critiquing verbal delimitation as distorting underlying flux, yet even here, the paradoxical discourse implies a meta-rational harmony accessible via intuitive alignment rather than propositional . Buddhist epistemology in schools like the (3rd–4th century CE), via thinkers such as , incorporates pramāṇas emphasizing direct perception (pratyakṣa) of mind-only phenomena, assuming foundational presence in cognitive events while debating verbal conventions (śabda). Dignāga's (5th century CE) exclusion of as independent pramāṇa, subordinating it to , highlights relational validity over absolute , though shared premises with reveal convergent assumptions about knowable structures in debate traditions. Such parallels remain interpretive constructs in comparative philosophy, with scholars cautioning against ethnocentric overlays; Eastern traditions often embed rationality in relational cosmologies rather than speech-centered metaphysics, as exhibits "Daocentrism" prioritizing way over word. Forced equivalences overlook causal divergences, like Daoist yielding adaptive resilience absent in Western presence metaphysics, underscoring no verbatim logocentrism but selective structural affinities verified through textual analysis.

Critiques of Western Logocentrism in Global Contexts

In postcolonial theory, Western logocentrism has been critiqued as a mechanism of colonial domination, imposing a and rational hierarchy that marginalizes non-Western epistemologies and voices. Gayatri Spivak, in her 1999 work A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, engages deconstructive tools derived from Derrida to expose how Kantian and Hegelian reason perpetuates imperial structures, yet she cautions that unchecked destabilization of meaning risks silencing subaltern agency, which depends on strategic assertions of referential truth against colonial erasure. This tension underscores a practical limit to anti-logocentric critiques: empirical analyses of postcolonial resistance, such as land rights claims by indigenous groups in documented in the 1980s-1990s, reveal reliance on stable historical references to counter abstract colonial narratives, suggesting that pure may undermine causal efficacy in advocacy. African and indigenous perspectives often highlight oral traditions as alternatives to logocentric writing, emphasizing performative presence akin to phonocentrism but rooted in communal relationality rather than metaphysical transcendence. In sub-Saharan African epistemologies, preserves knowledge through rhythmic immediacy, resisting the abstracted fixity of Western texts, yet these traditions maintain referential anchors—such as genealogical lineages verified across generations—to ensure epistemic reliability, mirroring logocentric stability without Platonic dualism. Indigenous North American critiques, as in Louise Erdrich's 1988 novel Tracks, portray logocentrism as disrupting cyclical oral histories, but anthropological records from the indicate that narratives employ fixed mythic referents for ethical guidance, evidencing a hybrid resistance that adapts rather than wholly rejects referential norms. In Asian contexts, receptions of hybridize with endogenous rational traditions, adapting Derrida's critique while preserving logos-analogues in Confucian li (ritual order) or Daoist dao (way), which prioritize coherent relational patterns over infinite deferral. Chinese scholarly engagements since the 1990s, including debates sparked by Derrida's 1980s visits, critique Western logocentrism as phonetically biased yet integrate deconstructive insights into Yijing without dissolving Confucian emphasis on moral reason's stability, as seen in Wang Hui's 2000s analyses linking wen (patterned expression) to enduring truth claims. Empirical supports a universal tilt toward referential stability: studies of 37 languages from diverse families, published in 2009, demonstrate consistent structures enabling precise reference resolution, implying innate cognitive preferences for grounded meaning that transcend cultural metaphysics and challenge radical anti-logocentric dissolution.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
  2. https://iep.utm.edu/jacques-derrida/
  3. https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/logocentrism.htm
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339529958_Ludwig_Klages_and_his_philosophy_of_language
  5. https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/a-text-dump-on-ludwig-klages
  6. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-philosophy/logocentrism
  7. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21293/how-does-logocentrism-entail-metaphysics-of-presence
  8. https://direct.mit.edu/thld/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/thld_a_00589/1610270/thld_a_00589.pdf
  9. https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01RUT_INST&filePid=13686342270004646&download=true
  10. https://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/images/a/a1/CullerWritingAndLogocentrism.pdf
  11. https://snsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Logos-in-Greek-Culture.pdf
  12. https://crossings.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/crossings/article/download/113/54
  13. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/102900/9781003828631.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  14. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/488590.pdf
  15. https://core.ac.uk/download/72046485.pdf
  16. https://archive.org/details/verbumwordideain0000lone
  17. https://www.academia.edu/42341279/Verbum_Mentis_Philosophical_or_Theological_Doctrine_in_Aquinas
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/
  19. https://philosophynow.org/issues/140/Hegels_Understanding_of_History
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
  21. https://cooperrc.github.io/engineering-dynamics/module_01/philosophy.html
  22. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/spacetime-theories/
  23. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/course-in-general-linguistics/9780231527958/
  24. https://books.google.com/books/about/Course_in_General_Linguistics.html?id=_a5QJBJf2GkC
  25. https://ia600204.us.archive.org/0/items/SaussureFerdinandDeCourseInGeneralLinguistics1959/Saussure_Ferdinand_de_Course_in_General_Linguistics_1959.pdf
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318294810_Paris_1955-1968_or_Structuralism
  27. https://monoskop.org/images/e/e8/Levi-Strauss_Claude_Structural_Anthropology_1963.pdf
  28. https://literariness.org/2018/03/23/key-theories-of-claude-levi-strauss/
  29. https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/structuralism/
  30. https://monoskop.org/images/0/03/Dosse_Francois_History_of_Structuralism_1_The_Rising_Sign_1945-1966.pdf
  31. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052016000100050
  32. https://www.uv.es/uvweb/master-language-literature-research/en/blog/linguistic-synchrony-diachrony-according-saussure-lyons-1285949653239/GasetaRecerca.html?id=1285972406340
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292498450_What_if_Derrida_was_wrong_about_Saussure
  34. https://academic.oup.com/book/7767/chapter/152907012
  35. https://www.thecollector.com/derrida-saussure-structuralism-logocentrism/
  36. https://literariness.org/2017/05/14/key-theories-of-jacques-derrida/
  37. http://www.signosemio.com/derrida/deconstruction-and-differance.asp
  38. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/derrida/
  39. https://www.pomoculture.org/2013/09/24/historicizing-derrida/
  40. https://literariness.org/2016/03/21/derridas-critique-of-logocentrism/
  41. https://monoskop.org/images/8/8e/Derrida_Jacques_Of_Grammatology_1998.pdf
  42. http://puneresearch.com/media/data/issues/5702b62aa1232.pdf
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g050t7
  44. https://parrhesiajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/parrhesia29_baker.pdf
  45. https://literariness.org/2016/12/20/helene-cixous-and-poststructuralist-feminist-theory/
  46. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2202542.pdf
  47. https://quillette.com/2018/05/21/postmodernism-decline-liberal-arts/
  48. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-the-number-of-college-graduates-in-the-humanities-drops-for-the-eighth-consecutive-year/
  49. https://heightsforum.org/article/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-humanities/
  50. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3911/derrida-searle-debate-any-information
  51. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/rida-searle-deconstruction-and-ordinary-language/
  52. https://thrownintotheworld.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/the-derrida-searle-dispute-what-happened-what-did-it-all-mean-and-who-came-out-on-top/
  53. https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Discourse-Modernity-Lectures-Contemporary/dp/0262581027
  54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23954536
  55. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html
  56. https://academic.oup.com/book/3508/chapter/144726180
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-philosophy-19452015/analytic-philosophy/F6F15A73F758A922AFC14D58DDC48EB5
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298943723_Semantic_Holism_and_the_Deconstruction_of_Referentiality_Derrida_in_an_Analytical_Context
  59. https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/davidson-and-indeterminacy-of-truth-conditions
  60. https://monoskop.org/images/5/53/Sokal_Alan_Bricmont_Jean_Fashionable_Nonsense.pdf
  61. https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/download/55094/17929/
  62. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-generative-grammar-1690894
  63. https://literariness.org/2017/05/14/noam-chomskys-approach-to-linguistics/
  64. https://pressbooks.openedmb.ca/wordandsentencestructures/chapter/generative-grammar/
  65. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/courses/BIB/semio2.htm
  66. https://osf.io/fnxs9/download/?format=pdf
  67. https://archium.ateneo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=kk
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-022-01026-4
  69. https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/204871/140137150.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  70. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-025-00797-3
  71. https://literariness.org/2016/03/17/intentional-fallacy/
  72. https://literariness.org/2016/12/01/key-theories-of-paul-de-man/
  73. https://newcriterion.com/article/quisling-criticism-the-case-of-paul-de-man/
  74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30227393
  75. http://documents.raymondvandewiel.org/habermas_derrida.pdf
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311319677_Derrida%27s_Deconstruction_contra_Habermas%27s_Communicative_Reason_and_the_Fate_of_Education
  77. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
  78. https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hicks-EP-Full.pdf
  79. https://theconversation.com/how-a-new-identity-focused-ideology-has-trapped-the-left-and-undermined-social-justice-217085
  80. https://www.simplypsychology.org/karl-popper.html
  81. https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/pseudoscience_rev.pdf
  82. https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html
  83. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2022.2102520
  84. https://dc.law.mc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty-journals/article/1055/&path_info=26CapULRev461.pdf
  85. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=lawreview
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369634267_The_Buddhist_Pramana_-Epistemology_Logic_and_Language_with_Reference_to_Vasubandhu_Dignaga_and_Dharmakirti
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394685006_The_Philosophy_of_Nyaya_and_Nyaya_Methodology_A_Lens_for_Mathematics_Learning
  88. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/nyaya-vaisheshika-critical-and-historical-study/d/doc1455980.html
  89. https://www.britannica.com/topic/li-Chinese-philosophy
  90. https://accesson.kr/kj/assets/pdf/8504/journal-59-4-194.pdf
  91. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-confucian/
  92. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/
  93. https://iep.utm.edu/daoismdaoist-philosophy/
  94. https://academic.oup.com/book/6264/chapter/149911145
  95. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27823290
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375767822_Transcending_Differences_Between_the_Tao_and_the_Logos
  97. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674177642
  98. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2014/06/19/spivak-gayatri-chakravorty/
  99. https://repository.up.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/b70b12e9-b572-484c-8dc1-8f636859b962/content
  100. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1bf5/1ff146274b77d6b03312f0441368d8eac1ad.pdf
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309671116_Narrative_orality_and_native-American_historical_consciousness_The_critique_of_logocentrism_in_Louise_Erdrich%27s_tracks
  102. https://www.academia.edu/124138405/Derrida_and_Chinese_Grammatology_from_writing_as_supplement_to_the_surplus_of_wen_%25E6%2596%2587
  103. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/where-is-deconstruction-today-on-jacques-derridas-theory-and-practice-and-byung-chul-hans-shanzhai-deconstruction-in-chinese
  104. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229889932_Empirical_Universals_of_Language_as_a_Basis_for_the_Study_of_Other_Human_Universals_and_as_a_Tool_for_Exploring_Cross-Cultural_Differences
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.