Some writers have argued that philosophers such as Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Ferdinand de Saussure have promoted phonocentric views.
Walter Ong, who has also expressed support for the idea of phonocentrism, has argued that the culture of the United States is particularly non-phonocentric.
Derrida has argued that phonocentrism developed because the immediacy of speech has been regarded as closer to the presence of subjects than writing.
He believes that one cause of this is the fact that written documents, such as the United States Constitution, form a key part of American national identity.
[1] He maintained that phonocentrism developed due to the human desire to determine a central means of authentic self-expression.
He saw phonocentrism as part of the influence of Romanticism, specifically its belief in a time in which people lived in harmony and unity with nature.
[10] Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has characterized Derrida's opposition to phonocentrism as part of his campaign against "human egocentricity.
He wrote that societies often make determinations that unfairly casts writing as an inferior method of communication and self-expression.
Searle believes that many philosophers, including Aristotle, Gottfried Leibniz, Gottlob Frege, and Bertrand Russell, have "tended to emphasize written language as the more perspicuous vehicle of logical relations.
He has argued that Derrida failed to provide an account of the historical forces that have influenced phonocentric and non-phonocentric cultures.
Though he describes Derrida's view as "brilliant and to a degree serviceable," he believes that it "plays with the paradoxes of textuality alone and in historical isolation."
Though Ong believes that it is impossible to separate writing from its pretext, he contends that "this does not mean that text can be reduced to orality.