Você está na página 1de 12


Deconstruction: Its Positivity, Implications and Relevance

Sri: Samkara captured the entire advaita philosophy in his famous saying, Brahma satyaṃ jagan mithya:,
ji:vo: brahmaiva na:parah ‘Brahman is the Truth, the world is an illusion; ji:va is Brahma alone and none
other than It”. The nihilists and the cynics understood creation in a different way as: The world is an
illusion and there is no God and there is no objective reality. Jacques Derrida is a follower of nihilism and
put forward a theory of literature based on the absence of an objective reality and God; so, he argued
against logocentrism, advocated overturning of binary oppositions, instituted differance (difference and
deferment) as a fundamental principle in understanding meaning as derived by relatability of words and
concepts within a text – since ‘there is nothing outside of the text’, used aporiai as clues to subvert
logocentrism, did sous rature and proposed dissemination and traces as means to understand the
indefiniteness of meaning. His project is not a method, not an analysis, and not a critique and celebrates
free play.

The denial of an objective reality is a contentious issue and the Indian tradition that follows Sri: Samkara
accepts it conditionally and not absolutely: objective reality is there as long as the human being is in the
state of empirical reality (vya:ha:rika satta), and it is not there when he transcends it into the transient
(pra:tibha:sika) or absolute (pa:rama:thika) reality (satta) - which are typically exemplified by wakeful-
dream-deep sleep states - and it has no existence without Brahman on which it is superimposed and so
depends on it to exist. Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar is a follower of Sri: Samkara. He argues that the nihilistic
view is fundamentally flawed because it ignores consciousness (that exhibits awareness) also as having
no objective reality without which there is nobody even to put forward the theory of nihilism. According
to him, the nihilists muddled the understanding of the empirical, transient, and absolute realities: “since
the empirical reality is continually changing, the nihilists thought that it is not there; but they have not
considered the fact that this universe as a whole is not only a sum of its parts, more or less than the sum
of its parts, but is also beyond them as a whole. In other words, the whole remains as the substratum of
the Immanent Intelligence in Nature as absolute reality in spite of the changes in its parts, even in spite
of the annihilation of the parts (of the superimposed world) simply because the world as a
superimposition cannot affect the substratum. However, the superimposed world lasts for billions of
years for the entire period of creation, until its dissolution. Hence, for all practical purposes, the external
world is there, unlike the transient world, based on a Universal Science of Creation for the ka:rmik
(actional) experience of the Living Systems even though it is not there in the absolute reality” (personal
communication). So, he puts forward his own theory of literature – as a dissenting voice against
deconstruction – based on karma (action) as a non-religious, dispositional, sociolinguistic phenomenon
and language as ka:rmik (dispositional) action and consequently literature as Literary Ka:rmik Action -
this is an offshoot of his main theory Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory which is an outstanding landmark in the
international scene of proverbiology (proverb studies); so, he rethinks logocentrism as ka:rmik centrism
instead of rejecting it; turns around the binary oppositions as well as other positions in an I-I-I
(interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) relation instead of overturning them; institutes ka:rmik
distribution as a fundamental principle in which one reality co-exists with the other two realities
(absolute, transient, and empirical realities are the three realities) or does not exist depending on the
state of knowledge and experience of the human being; understands meaning by dispositional
a:dhya:sam (superimposition), apava:dam (de-superimposition or negation), and a:nushangikatvam
(apparent transformation of cause into effect like clay into pot); uses all positions together to bring
about the emergence of meaning by their union either in the text or in the poet or in the reader by
dispositionalizing the experience of the text in the context of its interpretation through cognemes and
ka:rmemes intratextually-intertextually-ultratextually. His theory is rigorously scientific with a procedure
that implements the theory and techniques that implement the procedure. It has many concepts and
principles such as Networks-within-Networks, Atomic-Wholistic Functionality, I-I-I networks, Exploration
of Contextual Variables (ECV), Productive Extension of Variables (PEV), Creation of New Variables (CNV),
and many processes such as linear, parallel, cyclic, spiral, radial, etc. that are instantiated through
different types of networks such as star, systemic, evolutionary and web networks; it makes use of many
equations to capture different processes; and has a very well-developed notation to capture various
processes. Probably, this is the first time after many centuries in the history of Indian literary tradition
that a new theory is initiated in literature, after Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta; moreover, for
sure, he has heralded a new way of criticism through his equations, networks, graphs, and figures and
literary criticism will don a new graphic look from now onwards, if this trend is followed! As a new
theory, there may be loopholes and so it has to be applied widely, tested intensively, evaluated critically,
and finally abandoned or established in literary criticism as a modern Bha:rati:ya (Indian) response .

The presentation of Jacques Derrida’s paper “Structure, Sign and Play in the Human Sciences” at the
conference held at John Hopkins University, Baltimore in 1966 marked a departure from Structuralism
and heralds the dawn of post-structuralism and deconstruction. In 1967, Derrida published the
fundamental tenets of deconstruction in “Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference and Speech and
Phenomena”. Derrida derives the basic premise of ‘deconstruction’ from Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea
of signification explained in the “Course in General Linguistics” (1960). Derrida accepts Saussure’s views
about the arbitrary nature of signs and agrees with him that signification is the process in which
signifiers can be distinguished by their differences in binary pairs. But Derrida did not stop here and
went ahead by putting forth his notion of ‘differance’. Derrida’s rejection of assigning of transcendental
signification to signifiers and his concept of endless deferment of meaning announced a new era that is
marked by freedom and democracy in literary criticism. Derrida opposed the dictatorial approach that
prefers centre over periphery, main over margin, universalism over individualism. Due to its
recommendation of undecidability of meaning, modernist, structuralist, rationalist and the
traditionalists all viewed deconstruction with apprehension and confusion. Nobody predicted that
deconstruction will become such a powerful tool in literary criticism and will leave an indelible impact
on other branches of knowledge including even physical sciences which earlier viewed everything in
terms of certainty, perfection and absolutism. Now the impact of deconstruction as a post-modern
strategy has been even felt in physical sciences which have started viewing and calculating things with
respect to relativity, probability, approximation and even chaos.
Earlier approaches to human sciences were dictatorial as they assigned transcendental status to signs
and as a result talk in terms of certainties, fixities, absolutism and finality. These approaches were close-
ended as they regard a knowledge system as fixed and perfect. Deconstruction has a positive impact on
the methodology used in human sciences as it regards signification as a process that always remains in a
state of flux. An explorer of meaning in his quest to reach a final stage instead only finds a trace that he
has to fill up endlessly in his endeavour to find a centre, core and main signified which actually do not
exist. Derrida writes in this regard, “Henceforth, it was necessary to begin thinking that there was no
centre, that the centre could not be thought in the form of a present-being, that the centre had no
natural site, that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of nonlocus in which an infinite number of
sign-substitutions came into play. This was the moment when language invaded the universal
problematic, the moment when, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse –
provided we can agree on this word – that is to say, a system in which the central signified, the original
or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present outside a system of differences. The absence of
the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of signification infinitely.”( Derrida 151-

Deconstructive approach to oppose transcendentalism, fixities and mythisization of knowledge paved

the way for democratization of studies in the present century. Deconstruction is against creation of
grand myths and meta-narratives as they are fabricated to rule and exploit people and in due course of
time become dictatorial. Deconstruction, therefore, prefers micro and individual narratives which are
not partisan, selfish and exploitative in nature. The endeavour in a deconstructive study is to
demythisize what has been mythisized to deify a knowledge system and close it from any challenge,
modification and refinement. Deconstruction, therefore, celebrates tentative, temporal and ephemeral
nature of signifiers that allows contrary and multiple voices and interpretations to assign a new meaning
to a text.

Derrida rejected Structuralist’s tendency of assigning preferences to the main and the central signifiers.
He regards the movement of signification as ‘floating’ one which is characterized by playfulness,
substitutions and supplementation. He writes, “This field is in effect that of play, that is to say, a field of
infinite substitutions only because it is finite, that is to say, because instead of being an inexhaustible
field, as in the classical hypothesis, instead of being too large, there is something missing from it: a
centre which arrests and grounds the play of substitutions. One could say – rigorously using that world
whose scandalous signification is always obliterated in French – that this movement of play, permitted
by the lack or absence of a centre or origin, is the movement of supplementarity. One cannot determine
the centre and exhaust totalization because the sign which replaces the centre, which supplements it,
taking the center’s place in its absence (– this sign is added,) occurs as a surplus, as a supplement. The
movement of signification adds something, which results in the fact that there is always more, but this
addition is a floating one because it comes to perform a vicarious function, to supplement a lack on the
part of the signified.”(Derrida: 161). Derrida believes that Structuralist’s endeavours to trace the centre,
main and the core implies privileging centre over the periphery, main over the margin and core over the
individual parts. This preference for main, centre, and core consequently leads the signification process
to totalization, universalization, generalization and ultimately canonization of signs. According to
Purakayastha, “Deconstruction debunked the system building mechanisms of structuralism and
critiqued the structuralist claims that all phenomena can be explained or reduced to governing
structures or working systems. Such idea of controlling mechanism has totalitarian and colonial
implication of dominance. Derrida was concerned to demonstrate the instability and uncertainty factor
of language and through that he wanted to deny the certainties and groundedness or
transcendentalness of any system.” (Purakayastha 2011:141). Derrida opposed assigning of
transcendental status to signs and preferred playfulness, substitutions and supplementation of signs
endlessly as assigning metaphysical status to signs results in dictatorial and prescriptive approach that
breeds the colonial mentality in the world – be it in the guise of hegemony of Europeans or dominance
of any other forces over the marginal. The efforts to generalize, universalize and deify the selfish
motives of the colonial and imperialistic forces into meta-narratives ended in marginalization of a large
part of humanity which was silenced by the fabricated grand myths and not allowed to speak for
themselves. These marginal groups and communities were defined by the centre through the concocted
meta-narratives and myths. Often these definitions and descriptions of the margin by the centre were
distorted ones and aimed to exploit them. These stereotyped images were falsely projected by the
centre and they were forced to think about themselves in the images and identities cast by the centre.
Deconstruction allows these once silenced voices to assert their identities. It provides opportunities to
take a fresh and impartial approach to the issue of marginalization. As a post-modern endeavour,
deconstruction projects de-centering of the main, centre and the core.

In a deconstructive reading of a text, the views of the modernist, structuralist and colonial theories
about something as absolute, permanent and ultimate are questioned and deconstructed to show their
subjectivity, temporariness and the selfish motives behind them. Particularly, the colonial narratives
invented and later on mythesized to exploit the colonized have been challenged and the ulterior motives
behind them have been exposed. Post-colonialism uses the deconstructive strategies and questions and
challenges the colonial theories which establish European hegemony over the Asian and the African who
were mythesized as burdens on the white. Deconstruction strategies are not only used as a tool in
Postcolonial criticism and studies to expose the designs of the European who created various myths
about the culture, customs, habits, languages and literature of the colonized to rule them but also the
patriarchal system, caste system and other fabricated norms, rules and regulations set up by the social
institutions, governments, religions and the academia to continue their selfish and dictatorial schemes.
Discourse of opposition, discrimination, difference, othering, marginalization and the various thematic
concerns pertaining to politics, ideology are taken into account and deconstructed to unveil the hidden
agendas. A deconstructionist initiates his study from the sub-texts and through them tries to understand
the main one as the main texts can be understood fully only when the hidden sub-texts which
constitute the ideology and the intent can be taken up and understood.

Deconstruction compels us to rethink about the conventional methods and models of interpretation in
human sciences and to question the validity of the traditional hierarchies, points of views and privileges
and deconstruct the same by exposing their falsities, trivialities, and egoistic selfish designs. The
colonizers designs to provide metaphysical signification to colonial narratives to reap harvest out of
them and to continue the dictatorial colonial rules in the guise of emancipators and redeemers were
exposed through raising doubts and suspicions by the post-colonial’s anti-traditional, anti-
establishment, anti-imperialistic reading is nothing but a deconstructive strategy of re-reading the other
aspect of colonialism that has so far ignored the colonized and their enslavement. A deconstructive
reading never interprets a work by using pre-established rules or canons but rather investigates them
and unravels their exploitative designs hidden in a text or a work.

Deconstruction as a post-modern strategy exposes the oppressive and hegemonial impacts of the
majoritarian attitudes and unveils their hollowness and evil consequences. In this context, glorification
of meta-theories, domination and enslavement have been challenged and marginalities and their
culture, literature, the knowledge system have started drawing attention of the scholars and critics.
Many works of marginalities produced in local and regional languages are in the form of grievances and
protests against the pains and wrongs inflicted on them by the majority in the name of caste, colour,
creed, religion, region and gender etc. Be it dalit literature, feminist writings, tribal or subaltern
literature, we notice protests against the racial, casteist, patriarchal and elitist bias that contribute to
their wretchedness, impoverishness and marginality in society. Earlier the voices of protest were not
allowed to be heard and the exploitative forces projected their own perceptions on the subalterns and
marginals. Deconstruction allows the voices of the marginal – may be dalits, adivasies and women to
counter the selfish narratives of the colonial forces – which may be Europeans, elites, patriarchy,
nationalists and upper castes. These colonial narratives project false images of the marginal and create
an environment in which they are forced to think about themselves through their lenses. Deconstruction
takes a skeptic stand towards these meta-narratives and exposes their utter selfishness through
individual and micro narratives. Deconstruction regards universal and general concepts, ideas and
theories as notorious as they assume prescriptive and dictatorial attitude and dimension and dupe the
marginalities and individuals in the mask of their emancipators, redeemers and benefactors.

Deconstruction influenced almost all the domains of knowledge including literature and language
pedagogy. Derrida’s ‘Deconstruction’ and Barthe’s ‘From Work to a Text” emphasize postmodern
tendencies of indeterminacy and subjectivism rather than absolutism and objectivism as was the case
with structuralists and modernists. Deconstruction regards a text as an open-ended entity without a
core or a centre that assign it absolute and final signification. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak comments on
the methodology of Deconstruction in the introduction to “Of Grammatology” as follows:
“Deconstruction seems to offer a way out to the closure of knowledge by inaugurating the open-ended
indefiniteness of textuality – thus placing it in the abyss.” (Spivak 1974:XXXVI) Derrida regards a text as
a differential network consisting of a free play of signification. From the pedagogical perspective,
deconstruction implies not to force the students to accept readymade solutions and interpretations but
to stimulate them to come out with their own explanations and interpretations. Interpretation of texts,
if done in terms of metatheories and metanarratives, will not be an interpretation but rather imposition
of these meta theories and narratives on a text. No interpretation of a text is fixed and final due to the
presence of figural, rhetorical and intertextual elements in it. According to Roland Barthes, “The text is
plural. Which is not simply to say that it has several meanings, but that it accomplishes the very plurality
of meaning: an irreducible (and not merely an acceptable) plural. The text is not a co-existence of
meanings but a passage, an overcrossing; thus it answers not to an interpretation, even a liberal one,
but to an explosion, dissemination.” (Barthes 1992:168). The allusions, metaphors, symbols, paradoxes,
myths, quotations and the various other literary and aesthetic devices which constitute the literariness
of a text, lead to multiple significations and are approached by different readers with different
worldviews. Deconstruction as pedagogical strategy does not aim at arriving at theoretical explanation
of a text or a problem but a collaborative attempt to explore problem through surmises of different
sorts which yield nothing but a ‘trace’ and consequently endless discussions to fill it. Referring to
pluralistic nature of a deconstructionist analysis Professor N. Krishnaswamy writes, “The pedagogical
implications of such a point of view is worth exploring because it encourages exploration in an ever
changing magic land and transforms the teacher and the learner into explorers; in addition to creating
several points of views, it tries to set up a number of points for viewing so that the learners themselves
can be creative, innovative and speculative. Texts are not to be made obscure and incomprehensive; the
learners need not allow themselves to be manipulated and bullied by a handful of interpreters, critics or
specialists.”(Krishnaswamy 1991: 172). Deconstruction explores the dynamic nature of linguistic signs
and investigates the plurality and multiplicity of the interpretations and the repetition of signs in
different contexts assigns them different connotations. A deconstructionist explores the metaphoricity
and literariness of a text that extends its meaning endlessly as there are texts within a text and this
intertextuality compels a reader to read many more texts from which various references, allusions and
citations have been used. According to Rice and Waugh, “Deconstruction is a twofold strategy of, on the
one hand, uncovering and undoing logo centric rationality and on the other, drawing attention to the
language of the text, to its figurative and rhetorical gestures and pointing up the text’s existence in a
web of textuality, in a network of signifiers where no final and transcendental signified can be fixed.”
(Rice and Waugh 1992:148). One of the positive aspect of deconstruction as a pedagogical tool is the
interpretative freedom provided to the teachers. It implies that interpretation is not imposition but
exploration and a trial. The interpretative activity broadens the horizon of the subject. Referring to the
open-ended potential of deconstruction, Professor Mohit K. Ray writes, “The text must be read as
slippery, deceptive, unknowable, and most importantly, an unstable narrative. Language lets us down
just when we think it meaningful. The meaning is indeterminate. The text is not a closed system but an
open one into which we can have access through many different entrances none of which can be
claimed as the main one. Each single text, again, is a network that recalls many other texts and opens up
the horizon of intertextuality. A text is no longer seen as a veil hiding a meaning, but a web without a
centering spider, free play without closure.” (Ray 2001:15).

Derrida’s concept of ‘deferment’ is relevant to translation studies as well. According to Derrida, the
meaning of a text is deferred endlessly and no final and absolute translation of a text can be achieved.
As there is no transcendental and absolute meaning of a text, it is innately characterized by fluidity,
indeterminacy, instability and dynamism. A translator, when translates a text, in the process of its
recreation, fills his own meaning into it and in this way deviates from the original. According to P. K.
Kalyani, “The concept of other/difference provide a bigger room for translation to play. Instead of fixing
the meaning, translation can extend boundaries and open up new avenues for further differences. He
(Derrida) sees translation as a continuing process which aims at modifying the original text. It is a
continuous process that thwarts original meaning and simultaneously reveals a network of texts both
enabling and prohibiting inter-lingual communication. The process of translation as suggested by
Derrida not only rejuvenates the text but also rejuvenates the language.”(Kalyani 2001: 62). Thus,
translation as viewed by deconstructionist no longer remained a mere transformational activity from
source language into a target language but it goes beyond that. Translation is a creative activity. What is
created by a writer is recreated by a translator. The creation of the source language text into target
language text is never its replica but a reinvention of the original source language text into target
language text. Since meaning of a text is something like a mirage seen in desert, it cannot be replicated
through translation. Translation is a creative activity that breathes a new life into a text. Referring to
Translation as a creative and inventive enterprise, A.K. Singh writes, “Translation is an extension of
creative exercise characterized by almost the same process. Translator is a creative reader critic and not
a failed writer or a disappointed author. He reads, interprets, criticizes and creates, for translation is a
way or reading, interpreting, criticizing and in the same process creating a new text for those who have
no access to literature in an alien language system.”(Singh 1996:8).

To conclude, deconstruction initiated the era of democratization of studies in human sciences. It opened
the door for individual voices to be heard in literary criticism. It also paved the way for respecting the
sentiments and views of marginals and subalterns. Whatever confusions critics and thinkers smelt in
deconstruction in the days of its infancy, deconstruction contributed to the democratization of literary
criticism by providing freedom to prefer the less privileged choices in the binaries and allowed them to
assert their voices. It also liberated literary criticism from impositions and indoctrinization. This is the
positive aspect of deconstruction which otherwise has been viewed with negation, disapproval and even
apprehension. Rejection of assigning canonical status to signs, regarding totalization as useless and
impossible, believing in the process of signification as open-ended and infinite, preferring margins than
main are some of the fundamental tenets of deconstruction which have implication and applications for
post-colonial studies, translation studies, language teaching, literary criticism, human sciences as well as
physical sciences and almost all the subjects, disciplines and fields of study. A deconstructionist by
liberating himself from any pre-possessed and pre-conceived dogmas, philosophies and ideas reads a
text in its own reality and reveals its true meaning. Professor Chakoo refers to the liberating spirit of
deconstruction, when he writes, “It discourages us to identify ourselves with an idea or a cause and
advises us not to “worship” something homemade, something partial and parochial, something which,
however noble, is all too traditional. Its insights make us believe that no philosophy, no “ism” is enough.
Neither is any interpretation nor any “order” or any particular religious organization or church.”(Chakoo


In spite of the enormous popularity of Derrida and his deconstruction project, it will be negated by those
critics who believe in objective reality and the existence of God. A vast majority of Indians are believers
in God, be it the followers of Sanatana Dharma, or Islam, or Christianity, or Sikhism. Only those who are
Buddhists, or Jains may accept this theory. Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar is one among those who believe in
God and so deconstruction did not go well with him.

Sri: Samkara’s single comment on Sri: Krishna Parama:tma’s teaching in a slo:kam in the Holy Bhagavad
Gi:ta: Prakruthyaivacha karma:Ni kriyama:Na:ni sarvasah … (13.29) ‘By Prakruti are done actions in all
possible ways – be it mental, vocal or physical -… [later on complemented by Prakrute: kriyama:Na:ni
guNaih karma:Ni sarvasah… (3. 27)‘By the qualities of Nature are done actions in all ways’;
…svabha:vastu pravartate: (5.14) ‘It is Nature indeed that acts’; TribhirguNamayairbha:vaire:bhi:h
sarvamidam jagat (7.13) ‘All this world is deluded by these three types of sa:ttvik, ra:jasik, and ta:masik
bha:va:s (thoughts) which are the products of guNa:s’; na:nyam guNe:bhyah karta:ram
drushta:nupasyanti… (14.19) ‘When he who perceives (the actor) does not see any other agent except
the guNa:s…’ and advaita philosophy inspired him to pursue his folk understanding of the Holy
Bhagavad Gi:ta to construct his Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory as a non-religious, dispositional, sociocognitive
linguistic theory with applications in all fields of activity but mainly in proverbiology producing
outstanding results in the interpretation of proverbs. It is a significant landmark in the study of proverbs.
In fact, from his work on proverbiology (a study of paremiography and paremiology), a new branch in
proverbiology called Proverbial Linguistics has been initiated. Later on, he tried to assimilate the
principles of Sri: Samkara:’s advaita philosophy and applied them in his theory not as religious but as
empirical, scientific, and experiential principles based on a Universal Science of Creation that contains
Universal Sciences of Action, Living, and Lingual Action in an an a:nushangik holorchy (the cause
apparently transforming into the effect in a hierarchy) of US Action-Living-Lingual Action where all
(lingual) action is generated-specified-directed-materialized by svabha:vam (disposition) through
choices that produce variation. In addition, this action is performed by a ka:rmik process of realizing
ka:rmik reality (experiential reality in a cause-means-effect model by gradual evolution) through five
realities: dispositional-cognitive-socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional-(lingual) actional.

His ka:rmik linguistic theory is a holistic theory which is proposed as an alternative to the atomic
theories of Chomsky’s TG which considers language as only a mental phenomenon, Halliday’s SFL which
considers language as a social phenomenon, and Langacker’s cognitive linguistics which considers
language as a cognitive (conceptual) phenomenon. Briefly put, language is not only used by human
beings dispositionally for living in a context, but it is also created by human beings dispositionally by
living in the context by dispositionally cognizing it, realizing it for the construction of their dispositional
reality. This dispositional reality leads to the construction of ka:rmik reality through which the ka:rmik
actor (poet) experiences the results of producing the poem. It is done in a concept-pattern and
structure (P&S)-form framework as shown by him (see Bhuvaneswar 2011) below with a figure of this
process to illustrate by a simple example of how a hut is cognized, patterned and structured, then
materialized in a form. In the case of a poem, hut is to be replaced by poem.

P. A. D. P. A. P&S Cogneme of the Hut Materialized Form of th Hut

[P.A. Pure Awareness; D.A.Dispositionally qualified Differentiated Poetic Awareness]
Network 4: Conceptualization-Materialization Process Network
In this view, language is used as a resource for the construction of dispositional reality at the level
around (middle), actional reality at the level below, and ka:rmik reality at the level above. What is more,
it looks at lingual action as any other type of action – of course acknowledging its semiotic nature – and
thinks that it has not only form, not only function, not only meaning, but also disposition that generates-
specifies-directs-materializes lingual action as having form-function-meaning-disposition in a unified
frame of action. Thus it integrates form-function-meaning-disposition into a unified theoretical model
and describes language as a resource for constructing ka:rmik reality. In that sense, he considers his
theory truly holistic and not atomic vis a vis all other western theories- be it in linguistics, or language
teaching, or literature. He has briefly outlined his theory in his papers in Part 2 of this issue and the
reader is referred to them for an introduction to his theory and practice of literary (poetic) criticism.

Since his theory is rooted in a theory of action, it is applicable to each and every type of action. As a
result, Bhuvaneswar applied it not only to account for linguistic phenomena but also applied it to
language teaching, and even the interpretation of literature. In this book, he has contributed four papers
at a very short notice of one month to initiate discussion on his theory as well as dissent theoretically
from Derrida’s position as one Indian response to deconstruction. In the first paper, he has argued

2 4

Doors: 1 Dispositional Reality; 2 Socioculturalspiritual Reality; 3. Cognitive Reality; 4. Contextual
Actional Reality; Walls: Inner Wall – IIH Wall ; Middle Wall – SCS Wall; Outer Wall – STM Wall;
Circles: Inner Circle – Concept (Pasyanti); Middle Circle – P&S (Madhyama); Outer Circle – Form
(Vaikhari); Triangles: Upward Pointing Triangles – 4 Triangles (starting from the smallest) : 1.
Dispositional Creativity; 2. Motivation; 3. Composition; 4. Production; Downward Pointing Triangles: 5
Triangles (starting from the smallest) : 1.: Context; 2. Style; 3. Function; 4. Content; 5. Form C-q-D
Network 2: The Chakram of Gradual Evolution of A Poem (Spring and Fall)

against Derrida’s antilogocentrism and proposed ka:rmik centrism as a better alternative to appeal to
rational and scientific oriented thinkers. From that perspective of ka:rmik centrism, he provides
systematic correspondence between external human action and lingual action with a large number of
fundamental equations, networks and even graphs. In the second paper on the deconstruction of a
poem, he argues against the idea of meaning being in a constant flux with examples from the
Chando:gyo:panishad and shows how meaning is controlled to mean what the author intended and not
otherwise. Furthermore, he proposes Ka:rmik Literary Theory and Ka:rmik Critical Analysis as an
alternative to Deconstruction and the other western literary theories- which he considers atomic. In the
third paper, he applies the technique of a:dhya:sam to derive definitive meanings in a poem by doing
KCLA of A Vision by Simon Armitage in an author-centred perspective. Finally, in the fourth paper, he
applies the second technique of apava:dam to do KCLA from a text-centred perspective when authorial
intentionality is not available. There is another technique of a:nushangikatvam which is not applied here
in his papers.
By considering, a poem from the four important perspectives of authorial intentionality (A-I) – textual
referentiality, indexicality, and componentiality (TRIC) – reader receptivity (R-R) – experiential possibility
(E-P) and I-I-Iing them along with the stages of gradual evolution of a poem which are Concept (Seed) –
P&S (Sprout) – Form (Tree), and the knowledge of a poem in terms of Form-Content-Function-Style-
Context from the perspective of Motivation (M)-Composition (C)-Production (P) of a poem by the poet
in a unified ka:rmik centric framework, his theory is indeed the most comprehensive and (w)holistic
theory that has been proposed so far among literary theories. Again, all these features are I-I-Ied further
in a bigger network. The simple networks are shown here for a quick view.

A-I TRIC M Seed Sprout Form Content Function

R-R E-P C P Tree Style Context

Network 3: I-I-I Networks of Creation for a Poem

Bhuvaneswar captures his entire theory in the poetic chakram of the gradual evolution of a poem in
Network 2 (given above which is taken from his fourth paper and shown here instead of there) and
which is proposed in his last paper. The four upward pointing triangles represent poetic creativity from
an author’s perpective in terms of his motivation, composition, and production that spring from his
dispositional creativity; the five downward pointing triangles represent the knowledge of a poem: form-
content-function-style-context that are cognized in a unified cogneme that gradually evolves from a
seed-to-sprout-to-tree in a cause-means-effect framework through disposition for the construction of
literary (poetic) ka:rmik reality. Bhuvaneswar scientifically shows the categorial transformation of the
abstract disposition into the semi-abstract cognition of the poem into the concrete material form of the
poem by a Conjunction of Disposition-Cognition-Action (CDCA) psycholinguistically probably for the first
time in Literary Criticism giving us a psychologically more plausible, explanatorily and descriptively more
adequate explanation of how a poem is caused and produced – Wordsworth spoke of a spontaneous
overflow of emotions recollected in tranquility but Bhuvaneswar showed how disposition generates
emotions, embodies them by (lingual) intellection, categorially transforms ( ) those unmanifest
concepts into semi-manifest P&S into manifest form by vivartam ( ‘apparent transforms into’) as
poems in speech or writing either by recollecting them in tranquility or in turbulence or in sheer

Cognition Action Concept P&S

Disposition Form

Network 4: CDCA Network

This poetic action as a poem is cognized and realized by the Consciousness-qualified-Disposition (C-q-D)
in a four-doored house with a three-layered bricked wall of IIH [(Inclinational-Informational-Habitual)-
SCS (Socioculturalspiritual)-STM (Spatiotemporalmaterial) network. Finally, it is experienced as a
ka:rmeme by the poet as his poetic karmaphalabho:gam of the result (karmaphalam) of his poetic
action (karma). The critic has to re-cognize this evolution to provide a principled account of the poem
and inform the reader about it for him to recognize this evolution and get into the
aparo:kshaka:vyarasa:nubhu:ti (non-direct aesthetic experience of the poem. Have you ever found any
such compact geometric description of the creation of a poem in the history of poetry in the world
either in the past or in the present? I have not but my knowledge is extremely limited; so I leave it to
you, the learned reader, for your own evaluation.

Interestingly, this non-religious poetic chakram is inspired from the Sri Chakram of Sri Vidya instituted by
Sri: Samkara for the worship of absolute knowledge, of Vak, as Sri: Lalita:mbika, as Aum.

Barthes, R. 1992. “From work to text”. In Rice & Waugh (Eds.), Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed.
London: Edward Arnold.
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2011). “Proverbial Linguistics: Theory and Practice in the Ka:rmik Linguistics
Paradigm”. Plenary Speech at the International Symposium on Proverbs, University of Diderot, Paris.
Chakoo, B.L. 2001. “Production and reception of deconstruction”. In Ranjit Kaur Kapoor & Manjit Inder
Singh (Eds.), Post-Condition Theory, Text and Contexts . Patiala: Punjabi University.
Derrida, Jacques. 1992. ‘Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences’, writing and
difference, trans Alan Bass. In Rice & Waugh (Eds.) Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. London:
Edward Arnold.
Kalyani, P.K. 2001. Translation Studies. New Delhi: Creative Books.
Krishnaswamy, N. 1991. “Decomposing English lang-lit teaching”. In V. Prakasam & S.V.Parasher (Eds.),
Linguistics at Large. Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation.
Mishra, Prashant. 2009. “Postmodernism as a strategy used in studying postcolonial discourse”. The
Atlantic Critical Review, Vol. 8 No. 3 July-September, 127-134.
…………………………2011. “Postmodernism and its implications for translation studies”. In Binod Mishra
(Ed.), Spindle and the Wheel Re-Living Text and Context in Translation Studies. New Delhi: Adhyayan
Publishers & Distributors.
………………………2011. “Deconstruction and its pedagogical implications”. In G.A. Ghanashyam & T. Sai
Chandra Mouli (Eds.), English Language Teaching A Pedagogical Webquest. New Delhi: Authors Press.
Purakayastha, A.S.2011. “Ethical Derrida , the end of postmodernism and the new face of critical theory
in the post 9/11 world”. The Atlantic Literary Review, Vol. 12 No. 1 January-March 2011, 134-148.
Ray, Mohit K. 2001. “The genealogy of post-modernism”. In M.K. Bhatnagar and M. Rajeshwar (Eds.),
Post-Modernism and English Literature. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
Rice, Philip & Waugh, Patricia. (eds.) 1992. Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. London: Edward
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1960. Course in General Linguistics, Trans. Wade Baskin. London: Peter Owen
Singh, A.K. (eds.) 1996. Translation: Its Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Creative Books.
Spivak, gayatri Chakravorty. 1974. “Preface” of Translation “Of Grammatology” by Jacques Derrida.
Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.