Rejection of Representationalism
Can be local or global depending on whether one wishes merely to reject the representational thesis that all legitimate discourse is to be thought of representationally (i.e. claim that some discourse is primarily non-representational) vs claiming that no discourse should be thought of representationally.
Casual vs explanatory / justificatory usage
Even global-antirepresentationalists like Rorty are ok1 with representational vocabulary being used by cognitive scientists in our causal stories about sub-personal cognitive mechanisms. The problem is when representation is invoked in explaining concepts, justification, entitlement, authority.
This is the Kantian distinction of quid factus and quid juris, or the Sellarsian scientific image and manifest image.
Exception: Hubert Dreyfus ↩