Editing Logocentrism (section)

== In literary theory ==
Inherent in Saussure's reasoning, a [[Structuralism|structuralist]] approach to literature began in the 1950s <ref>(Barry, p. 38)</ref> 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'.<ref>(Barry, p. 42)</ref>

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]], [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein]], [[Heidegger]] and [[Freud]], as well as those who have been influenced by them in this vein.<ref>(Barry, p. 64)</ref> 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.