Talk:Phallogocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cleanup issues

  • Are logocentrism and phallocentrism really synonymous?? If so, the connection needs to be explained.
  • Needs examples of logocentrism.
  • Needs examples of phallocentrism.
  • It's unclear what the signified/signifier distinction is referring to; perhaps an example of a pair and some statement that priviledges the one over the other would be helpful.
  • The references to "Saussure" and "Rousseau" are ambiguous; if you follow those links, you get to disambiguation pages. I'm not sure who is being referred to here.
  • "the supplementary and violent bastard-child of speech." Violent? Huh?

-- Beland 04:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Expansions on this concept by Luce Irigaray might also be helpful to make note of here.
  • Aren't Phallocentrism and Phallogocentrism different? They should have two separate articles. Is phallogocentrism different from phallologocentrism?

[edit] Difference between Logocentrism and Phallogocentrism

Logocentrism needs its own article. It is a concept debated as far back as Plato- far before Derrida's masterful neologism. Logocentrism, even according to Derrida, is the concept of written language as dependent on thought, and by analogy, speech. Phallogocentrism, by relation, is the implication that societal logos, that is, thought/speech/writing, is largely phallocentric. See Merriam Webster's definitions:

Main Entry: logo·cen·trism Pronunciation: "lO-g&-'sen-tri-z&m, -gO-, "lä- Function: noun Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 1 : a philosophy holding that all forms of thought are based on an external point of reference which is held to exist and given a certain degree of authority 2 : a philosophy that privileges speech over writing as a form of communication because the former is closer to an originating transcendental source

For Derrida, the "external point of reference" within our logos is the phallus. Including logocentrism within phallocentrism's article is just plain wrong, and does not do Derrida's work (it's from Of Grammatology) justice.

I don't dispute that there should be a separate article. However, I don't think the definitions of the two terms are as different as you suggest. The only thing different about logocentrism and phallogocentrism is that phallogocentrism captures the phallus and the logos within the same Western ideal: the phallogos. Also, I don't think Derrida himself ever framed phallogocentrism as an implication about modern society; rather, to him it was more a description of Western thought. COGDEN 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Phallogocentrism is essentially a feminist criticism of logocentrism. These should be two separate articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] phallocentrism

Phallocentrism is NOT synonymous with phallogocentrism; it doesn't refer to a generalized host of dichotomies, but specifically to a male-centered world view that places women in the position of object rather than subject. It isn't the correct form for referring to text-based analyses without that political component. There shouldn't be a redirect, Phallocentrism should have it's own entry.

I agree. Phallocentrism is a subset of logocentrism. It claims that in the male/female dichotomy, male is the logos or center, and female is the deviant (Adam's rib). Whereas logocentrism is simply the phenomenon that makes this possible. --Ryan Heuser 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/a/Talk%7EPhallogocentrism_5032.html"