Cultural and linguistic communication
JACQUES DERRIDA – GRAMMATOLOGY, THE PROGRAMME OF A POSTMODERN SEMIOLOGY
Paul GORBAN1
1Assoc. Prof. PhD, „Apollonia” University of Iaşi, Romania Corresponding author: Paul Gorban; e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract which, according to the philosopher, has authentic Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) is one of the most important meanings and communicates much better than French philosophers who contributed to the introduction writing, being closer to authentic thinking. of the concept of postmodernism in the contemporary What the French philosopher accomplishes is culture and knowledge. His name is linked to some concepts that have been used in the philosophical basically a continuation of Heidegger’s critical journalism, but also in that of the literary theories, position on metaphysics. Therefore, if Heidegger especially within the American space, such as: deconstruction, situated the place of the human being in the writing, trace, grammatology, spacing, difference, arch-writing, language, as the original place, the French etc. which we aim to present in the following pages. Keywords: postmodernism, philosophy, semiology, philosopher takes the critique of metaphysics anthropology, structuralism. even further, using some analysis of the theories of language. In fact, the philosopher’s intentions Following the path of F. de Saussure, D. Hume, are, on the one hand, to overcome Heidegger’s Fr. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, L. Wittgenstein, teachings on being, Dasein and language, which Derrida develops the theory of deconstructionism, express the metaphysics of the origin’s final which helps him highlight the textual character of adventure and, on the other hand, to demonstrate philosophical writing. In this regard, many that the linguistic structuralism does not miss the analysts of the French philosopher have shown metaphysical determinations which embraces that the ideas present in his papers are developed the whole history of European thinking, meaning on the basis of a literary thinking, characteristic to the phonocentrism, which according to the French the style and not on a discursive model belonging philosopher, is coextensive to logocentrism. In to classical philosophy. For example, the Cluj other words, for Derrida, speech equals writing. interpreter, Aurel Codoban, in the preface of the In this context, we can configure, right from the book Exhibitions, shows that, nowadays, Derrida first lines, the so-called derridarian programme, approaches in his papers issues regarding the which is the overcoming of metaphysics using the relationship between philosophy and non- criticism of logocentrism essentialised as philosophy, starting from a philosophical phonocentrism (TROC, 2006). discourse of literary genre. Basically, if we analyse A definition and also a criticism of logocentrism Writing and difference, Voice and phenomenon, as is achieved by the French philosopher in the well as About grammatology, papers belonging to opening pages of About grammatology, in which the French author, we notice a proximity with the this concept is presented as describing a rhetoric used in augmenting the literary theories. metaphysics of phonetic writing (of the alphabet, Following the paths of the French structuralists, for example). Derrida harshly criticises this Derrida develops his position towards the metaphysics suggested by the linguists of the (linguistic) sign. The French poststructuralist is previous century which raises at an important opposed to the logocentrism promoted by Plato and level the problem of language, more precisely of the continental metaphysics which states the idea the sing language. that words have a clear meaning which facilitates Stating that the thinking has to avoid peoples’ communication. He supports the speech metaphysics, Derrida criticises Saussure’s
International Journal of Communication Research 37 Paul GORBAN linguistic structuralism or Levi Strauss’s fragmentation of the sign. This fragmentation anthropological one. Displaying his denial characterises the strengths of our weaknesses, position of logocentrism within the philosophy of which comes from the fact that the lack of power language, the French philosopher denies the separates, disengages and emancipates. According existence of the speech-writing, mind-body, to Derrida, structuralism leads to the idea of internal-external, good-evil, accident-essence, technical freedom, even if it represents in itself the identity-difference, presence-absence, the space- pure and simple conscience, perceived as a bad, literally-figurative and masculine-feminine thinking of the past, of the fact. This conscience is separations (BOTEZ, 2005). For example, Derrida catastrophic, destructive and deconstructed. “We shows that Saussure limits the writing systems to perceive structure at the moment of threat (…) it two, defined as representation systems of the oral can then be methodically threatened in order to language, no matter if they represent words, in a be better perceived and not only in its ribs, but synthetically and global manner or if the also in that secret point in which it is neither phonetically represent constitutive sound elements ascension nor ruin or instability. This operation is of words. The philosopher arguments that called to preoccupy or to request. (…) The structuralist phonetic writing has as a functional principle preoccupations and requests, when they become referring to the upholding and protection of the methodical, only facilitate the illusion of the language’s internal protection system and that technical freedom. Indeed, they produce, within Saussure’s limitation does not correspond to the the register of the method, a preoccupation and a scientific demands of the internal system. The request of the being, a historical and metaphysical latter is built as an epistemological exigency in threat of the basements. Especially in the eras of general, by the possibility of phonetic writing and historical dislocation, when we are driven out of by the exteriority of denotation in relationship to the place, this structuralist passion develops for the internal logic (DERRIDA, 2009). In Writing and itself, which is, at the same time, a sort of difference Derrida clearly highlights the idea that experimental anger and a proliferative over- the contemporary world is flooded by the simplification” DERRIDA,( 1998). structuralist invasion (which arguments its We could say that Derrida develops a methodologies and fundaments on the basis of constructivism on structuralism, situation that three concepts: of writing, of the history of can be interpreted as poststructuralist or metaphysics and of science). Under these postmodernist. In an interview with Julia conditions, despite all the differences, the universal Kristeva (DERRIDA, 2001) the French philosopher reflection receives an impulse from a restlessness explains the logocentric and etnocentric limits of regarding language, a restlessness within the the models which influence present-day language itself. No matter our lack of knowledge, semiology, meaning the model of the sign and of says Derrida, the question regarding the sign is its correlates: communication and structure. within itself more or less different that a sign of According to Derrida, because of these limitations time (a trend), and trying to reduce it only to that one cannot think that one day we could attribute means causing violence, especially since this the concept of the sign to metaphysics, and if question – historical in a completely unordinary however this were to happen, than it would way – gets closer to the point in which the nature represent both an obstacle and a progress. In of the pure sign of language becomes uncertain, order to augment this theory, Derrida uses partial and unessential. The philosopher shows examples from Saussure, showing that he that the structuralist attitude and our position confronts, when talking about the sing, the before the language or within the language do not system of the spoken language with the system only represent some moments in history but also of phonetic writing, as if this were the telos of a wonder, through language as an origin of writing. According to Derrida the sign concept history. Derrida notices that structuralism, as well has its own phonic substance, the phonè which as other systemic fundamental sciences, creates represent the significant substance, which offers the illusion of technical freedom, and this only the conscience the most intimate relationship with leads to the separation of the concepts, to the the thought of the signified concept. In other
38 Volume 7 • Issue 1, January / March 2017 • JACQUES DERRIDA – GRAMMATOLOGY, THE PROGRAMME OF A POSTMODERN SEMIOLOGY words, from this point of view, in relationship to epistemological model for all the human related the sassaurian thought, the voice represents the sciences. Phonocentrism is coextensive to conscience in itself. The French philosopher logocentrism in its different hypothesis: the wants to point out here that when he speaks, “he presence of things in front of the sight as eidos, is conscious not only of the things he is thinking, the presence as substance/essence/existence, but he also keeps his thinking closer or the concept, the presence of the cogito, of conscience, of a significant which does not fall in the world that subjectivity, etc. but essentialised as logocentrism, I understand closer to my own thinking or to the which characterizes the era of metaphysics which concept, a significant which does not fall in the is specific for disregarding writing. The criticism world, that I understand as soon as I send it, of phonocentrism is therefore used by the French which depends purely on my spontaneity” philosopher with the purpose of presenting what (DERRIDA, 2001). the spine of the metaphysic era is. In other words, This thing, as Derrida shows, creates confusions phonocentrism is that layer of depth where we use because, on the one side, the signifier and the the language to order the remaining, the delay signified seem to reunite and, on the other hand, close to the world represented by metaphysics the signifier seems to become transparent in order and within its era. to let the concept (that he thinks) to present itself, Summarizing the previously mentioned as it really is. In other words, the exteriority of the aspects, in this era, reading and writing, signifier seems reduced. This experience, from the producing and interpreting signs are, in general, point of view of the French philosopher is a doomed to secundarity, being preceded by a delusion which facilitated the organization of a truth or a significance which are previously structural era, which eventually highlighted constituted by logos and within its environment semiology, whose concepts and presuppositions (TROC, 2006). started from the time of Plato and Hegel and were The stress for Derrida is on the spontaneity of brought into our days. speech. He highlights the hypothesis that we In order to get out of the structuralist sphere of cannot admit a linguistics that can be general as presuppositions and prejudices, Derrida proposes far as it defines exterior and interior starting a re-writing of the concepts that are used in from some determined linguistic models as this semiology: “Exactly like the concept of sign – and cannot distinguish essence from fact. Writing is therefore semiology – he (Derrida refers to the not an image, or figurative language, only if we concept of structure) can both confirm and reconsider nature, logic and the functioning of challenge the logocentric and ethnocentric the image within the interior system from which certainties. We must not through these concepts we want to exclude it. “Writing is not a sign of away, and we don’t even have the means to do it. the sign unless we state this, which will be more Without doubt, within semiology, we have to deeply true, in regard to all signs (…) What transform the concept, move them, turn them Saussure show without seeing, what he knew against their presuppositions, re-write them in without being able to take into account, following other ways, slowly modify their workground and the whole tradition of metaphysics, is the fact therefore to come up with new configurations; I that a certain writing model imposed itself, but do not believe in the decisive break, in the oneness in a temporary manner (with all the principle of an epistemological break” (DERRIDA, 2001). infidelity, fact insufficiency and permanent We may now say that the plan in which usurpation that it is characterized by) as an Derrida’s analysis take place there is a relationship instrument and as a representation technique of between writing and speech, in other words a a language system.” The language system report between the graphical and the phonic associated with phonetic-alphabetic writing is substance. Derrida shows that in our era the the one in which the logocentric metaphysics linguistic scientificity is acknowledged due tothe appeared, which determines the sense of the virtues of its phonic fundament, because being as presence. This logocentrism, this era of phonology sends its scientific framework to full speech has always put into parenthesis, linguistics, which, on her own turn, serves as an suspended, and forever repressed, from some
International Journal of Communication Research 39 Paul GORBAN essential reasons, any free reflection on the origin which made everything possible to reduce its and the status of writing, any science of writing, difference. If we persist in calling this difference any free reflection on the origin and the status of writing it is because, in the labor of suppressing writing, any science of writing which was not history, writing was, due to its own situation, technology and the history of a technique, joined to aimed at signifying what was feared in this a mythology and to a metaphoric of natural difference. It was the one that, in close proximity, writing” (DERRIDA, 2009). threatened the desire of speech that attacked it, This logocentrism is the one that generally from the inside and from its beginnings. And the limits the system of the language, it is the one difference (…) cannot be perceived without any that hindered Saussure and his followers to connection with the trace” (DERRIDA, 2009). determine what they called “the integral and Further, the philosopher, analysing Husserl, concrete object of linguistics.” The philosopher’s will signal that a thought of the trace can neither clear position – argued by some linguists (and it be reduced to a transcendental phenomenology was obvious that this would happen), and on the nor can it be separated from it. The (pure) trace is other hand appreciated by them for the (re) the difference, notes the philosopher. This does opening or (re)writing of the field – is that not depend on a sensible, audible or visible, generalized writing does not only represent the phonic or graphic plenitude, but on the contrary, idea of a system which has to be invented, on the it represents its condition. Even if there doesn’t contrary, that spoken language is part of this exist or there isn’t a present-being, the possibility writing, which the philosopher suggests, of the shadow is anterior to everything that we represents o change of the writing concept in call sign or concept. The difference allows, itself, which grammatology only anticipates. We according to the French philosopher, the must state the fact that the philosopher does not articulation of speech with writing, as well as it argue the value of the phonologistic arguments, builds the metaphysical opposition between but he analyses the problem of writing or, more sensible and intelligible or between the signifier precisely, of rewriting. Therefore, trying to get and signifies, expression and content, etc. In rid of entocentrism, we only manage to delete other words, the concept of trace receives its the boundaries within the sphere of language metaphysical reception as a prior right to any legitimacy, and this is why we have to understand physiological matter on the nature of the enigma that we don’t rehabilitate writing in its strict or metaphysical on the meaning of absolute sense or rebuild the order of dependency when presence, whose trace is offered, exactly in order it is obvious. Derrida explains that we cannot to be deciphered: “the trace is indeed the absolute object anything to the phonologism, as long as origin of the meaning in general. Which is exactly the we preserve the present concepts of speech and same as saying, once again, that there is no absolute writing which build the structure of his origin to the meaning in general? The trace is the argumentation, “what we try to suggest is that difference which opens the fact of appearing and the supposed deviations of writing, no matter the significance. Articulating alive on not alive how real or massive it turns out to be, can only in general, origin of every repetition, origin of be achieved under one condition: if the initial, ideality, it is neither ideal, nor real, or intelligible, natural language never had existed, and it should or sensible, or transparent significance, or opaque never have been untouched by writing, and it energy, and no concept belonging to metaphysics should have been a writing in itself. Arch-writing can describe it. And, taking into account that it which we want to signal the necessity and to proves itself as being prior to the distinction draft the concept of the new; and which we between the regions of sensibility, meaning both continue to name writing only because it in relationship with the sound and with light, communicates, in an essential manner with the does it have any sense to establish a natural vile concept of writing. This was able to impose hierarchy between the acoustic fingerprint, for itself from a historical point of view only because example (here Derrida makes use of Saussure’s it dissimulated arch-writing, wishing for a speech distinction regarding the sign), and the visual which exiled the opposite and the double, and (graphic) footprint?” (DERRIDA, 2009).
40 Volume 7 • Issue 1, January / March 2017 • JACQUES DERRIDA – GRAMMATOLOGY, THE PROGRAMME OF A POSTMODERN SEMIOLOGY
From this point of view, concludes the French boundary which closes the field of classical philosopher, the graphical image is not seen, and scientificity” DERRIDA,( 2001). the acoustic images in not heard. The difference Derrida does not believe in the death of between the full unites of voice remains unheard philosophy, of the history book, of the human, and the difference between the body in writing of God or of writing, as we generally meet in the is invisible. On the other hand, we can clearly supporters of Nietzsche’s philosophy, but on the state that grammatology (the concept that contrary he prefers to speak about a limit from configures the whole deconstruction thought of which philosophy has become possible, it defined Derrida) is configured as the only science of the itself as a system of episteme, working within a future, a- temporal, non-chronologic, virtual, it is system of fundamental constraints, conceptual the science of deconstruction and of (re)writing oppositions, outside which it becomes the concepts. Derrida, in the interview impracticable. Therefore, Derrida’s terminology Implications, with Henri Ronse shows that About directs us to the idea that we write in two hands, grammatology does not appear as a defense or which marks a slip of the episteme to the point illustration of grammatology (known in its of their non-pertinence, of exhaustion, of closure. classical meaning). It does not reinstate the writes In other words, this writing at two hands is marked for excellence and the determination of writing by the phenomenon of deconstruction. which Plato states that it was an orphan, opposed Deconstruction is a concept that, besides the fact to the speech, as a legitimate son of the logos. But that it is considered a label belonging to Derrida, on the contrary, grammatology asks a question it was and it still is associated with postmodernism, about the necessity of a science of writing, about whose roots remain, as Ciprian Mihai points out, its possibility conditions, about critical labor diverse and very little known. Moreover, the which could open its field and to eliminate terminology has entered for more than two epistemological obstacles, but at the same time decades in the circuit of fashionable concepts. it also asks a question regarding its scientific This trend regarding deconstruction tends to limits. According to the philosopher, these limits limit yourself to the appearances and the game can be those of the classical notion of science, of images, to the apology of thinking and the which plays its discourse and norms systematically impact of the words, to making a show of strident related to metaphysics. According to Derrida, and distinctive signs. In other words, there is no such thing as a scientific semiotic deconstruction is aimed to represent a rebellious labor which does not serve grammatology. This attitude without knowing very well where the is why grammatology has to deconstruct law is (MIHAI, 2006). everything that is connected to the concept and But for Derrida to deconstruct philosophy norms of scientificity, onto-theology, logocentrism means to think the structured genealogy of its and phonologism. “It is an immense and concepts in the most faithful manner, the most continuous labor which has to avoid transferring interior but at the same time, as much as it is the classical project of science to the prescientific possible, from an in-outside unspeakable, to empiricism. This presupposes a sort of double unnamed by it. Starting from the paper Voice and register within the grammatological practice: it phenomenon, published when the philosopher has to either go beyond positivism or metaphysical turned 37, deconstruction appears more as a scientism and emphasized the aspect that in the necessary, reformatory function, than as a youth effective labor of the science contributes to free whim. It appears, as the philosopher itself states, themselves from metaphysical mortgages which from a feeling of sorry, from a trouble, from a weigh on its defining and movement, starting personal wound (on the ideal and assumed body from its origin. We must follow and consolidate, of philosophy) whose straightening, deleting which in the scientific practice, has always started and “healing” were imposed as an emergency. Its to exceed the logocentric closure. Grammatology program to correct the reforms and philosophical joins and delimits science; it has to make scientific revolutions, unfortunately failed, which managed norms work, in a free and rigorous manner, to accredit and to continue a dangerous fake, a fake within its own writing; it also loosens the break, and renewal of the types of discourse. In
International Journal of Communication Research 41 Paul GORBAN other words, deconstruction appears as a of difference. The economic movement of the trace destruction of tradition, as it was written in more – according to a report which states that no on a number of times, and as a light of it. In this speculative dialects of the same and of the other context, the Romanian translator of the paper could not dominate, for the pure fact that it remains About grammatolgy, Bogdan Ghiu highlights that a domination operation” (DERRIDA, 1997). deconstruction, for Derrida, represents a On the other hand, the multitude of precautions resumption and a recurrence of history of thinking with which the French philosopher presents the from its critical points. The French philosopher risk of the deconstruction activity of European renews the moments of occultation, self-preservation, metaphysics, namely that of remaining a prisoner of falling, into the economic-interested cunnings within the system that it pretends to challenge, of reason, of release and ultimate and agonizing seems to transform precaution in a rhetorical topos cowardice, to appropriate the courage of bold and to reveal the secret reverse of risk (the risk of thoughts which tried to free the thinking, both a regression within the deconstructed system or ethical and logical. Deconstruction repeats the of the system which is in course of deconstruction). internal history of thinking (not just philosophical), According to Derrida, if we propose to deny this being written not as a campaign journal of the risk we will only confirm it, meaning to consider impossible victories, highlighting with every the signifier as a conventional circumstance of the example the actual fighting glory, the heroic concept and as a concession without any specific courage, inevitably blind, of the ambitions and wills, effect, as it is in our case, the name. Denial basically of the emancipation of thinking” (DERRIDA, 2009). means affirming the autonomy of the meaning, On the other hand, another concept that has the ideal purity of a theoretical and abstract become the object of research on the work of the history of the concept. While, on the other hand, philosopher is that of différance. Regarding this explains the French philosopher, the claim to concept one can say that it is a compound word immediately free ourselves from the previous formed from the noun différance from the family brands and to go through a rudimentary gesture of the verb différer and a possible noun (which into the exterior of classical oppositions means to doesn’t exist, but it could exist) from the family of forget that these oppositions did not represent a the verb différer, this différance is “what makes the given system, but an asymmetric and hierarchized presentation of the being-present possible,” is “the space, crossed by forces and acted in its enclosure origin that is never given to the present” of what by the exterior that it refused, interiorized as one it is, with all its possible configurations. This of its moments. But deconstruction in itself différance, as Radu Toma points out in the preface represents a preliminary stage of an operation of Writing and difference, which “is never presented,” with a significance not yet explained, therefore as “which is reserved and is never exposed,” leaves a preliminary stage, deconstruction means an “traces” in which it is presented (DERRIDA, 1998). introduction into the abyss: “…deconstruction For Derrida no concept, no name and no signifier presupposes a compulsory stage of overturns. doesn’t evade the rule according to which every Staying in overturn means to operate, of course, concept receives two similar brands, one inside in the immanence of the system which must be the deconstructed system, and the other one destroyed. But keeping ourselves in it in order to outside it, where it should have been reached on go further, to be more radical or more thoughtful, the occasion of a double reading, of a double to adopt an attitude of neutralizing indifference writing and, in due time, of a double science. This towards the classical oppositions would mean to double reading emphasizes the difference that the set free the forces that effectively and historically French philosopher describes: “the difference dominate the field. If we can’t take over the means (différance) also designates, within the same to intervene within it, this would mean to confirm problematic field, this war economy which the established balance” (DERRIDA, 1997). establishes a relationship with the radical alterity or the absolute exteriority of what there is outside From here it results that for Derrida the (du dehors) with a close, agnostic and hierarchical turnover represents a fundamental phase in the head of philosophical oppositions, of differents or economy of deconstruction. As a result, the first
42 Volume 7 • Issue 1, January / March 2017 • JACQUES DERRIDA – GRAMMATOLOGY, THE PROGRAMME OF A POSTMODERN SEMIOLOGY effect of dissemination is that it can no longer unveiled by the arché expression. Besides that, dominate the values of responsibility or those of grammatology does not escape the limitations individuality, meaning that there no longer exists of the game, because the deconstruction of “a metaphysical-concept,” there is no metaphysics does not escape the history of “metaphysical-name.” According to Derrida, metaphysics. In other words, the characteristic metaphysics is a sort of determination which of our types, explains Codoban, is the cannot be opposed to a concept of textual labor descentration of the philosophical discourse as and another concatenation. Those being said, a result of the structuralist thinking of structure. “the development of this issues will therefore “Derrida aims to claim the ontology of the forbid the difference movement, as it was exposed significant surface using a philosophic discourse in another context: a productive and conflict where subtitles have eroded the significances movement that neither identity can perceive, that and the energies of the concept up to metaphors cannot be sublimated, solved or calmed by the and metonymies, which are no longer philosophical dialectics and which practically, understood restrictively, as figures of poetry, historically or textual disorganizes, the opposition but extensively as axes of the order of language. of the difference (the still distinction) of those Destructor of metaphysics, he remain a prisoner, that are different” (DERRIDA, 1997). without nostalgia and joy, of the end of the For Derrida, the difference appears that that European philosophy, which, after playing the event which establishes the game of differences important cultural roles of the initiating that produce semantic effects, meaning the discourse or of the absolute knowledge, it is difference disseminates the differences. It has complacent now with the strange beauty of a more than one name, such as arch-writing, trace, discursive game that outlines the literary text etc. and without longer being origin, it stays on game of signs” (CODOBAN, 2005). the empty place of that first of metaphysics. In the end, we add that Derrida’s project of Derrida also suggests that we don’t have to deconstruction has become, as very well Gabriel credit the metaphysical concept of history, Troc notices, the main expression of the because it is the concept of history as a history postculturalism, which defines postmodernism. of meaning, being produces, developed and Deconstruction is therefore opposed to the achieved in a linear manner, in a straight or edifying system dimension of structuralism, and circular line. This is why, says the philosopher, to any other type of augmented system on the the closure of metaphysics cannot take the form of basis of the concepts of metaphysics. Deconstruction a line, a form which philosophy acknowledges, questions the reducibility of the phenomena to the in which it is acknowledged and, on the other operations of the sign; it questions the idea that hand, the closure of metaphysics is not a circle we can have complete control over our world, that that delimits a homogenous field, homogenous we can judge and achieve a general science of the within itself, and whose outside would therefore language or of thinking. be homogenous. The limit, Derrida continues to explain, has the form of some distinctive fissures References which mark all philosophical texts. Analyzing Derrida’s project on the BOTEZ, A. (2005) Postmodernismul în filozofie, Floare albastră Publishing House, Bucureşti. deconstruction of metaphysics, grounded on CODOBAN, A. (2005) Filosofia ca gen literar, Idea Desing the principles of grammatology, Aurel Codoban & Print Publishing House, Cluj. rightly notices that the intentions of the DERRIDA, J. (1997) Diseminarea (translation in romanian philosopher are shadowed by contradictions. by Cornel Mihai Ionescu), Univers enciclopedic Therefore, because grammatology postulates an Publishing House, Bucureşti. archaic and plenary symbolic thinking together DERRIDA, J. (1998) Scriitură şi diferenţa (translation in with a nonlinear arch-writing, which leaves the romanian by Bogdan Ghiu and Dumitru Ţepeneag), Univers Publishing House, Bucureşti. whole polysemy unaltered, it does not escape DERRIDA, J. (2001) (Ex)poziţii (translation in romanian the limitations of the game by imposing a center by Emilian Cioc), Idea Desing & Print Publishing House, that, according to the scientist from Cluj, is Cluj.
International Journal of Communication Research 43 Paul GORBAN
DERRIDA, J. (2009) Despre gramatologie (translation in MIHAI, C. (2006) Uzuri ale filosofiei,Idea Desing & Print romanian by Bogdan Ghiu), Tact Publishing House, Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca. Bucureşti. TROC, G. (2006) Postmodernismul în antropologia culturală, Polirom Publishing House, Iaşi.
44 Volume 7 • Issue 1, January / March 2017 •