Phallocentrism: what is it and what does it tell us about our society?

We explain what is this concept linked in its origins to the ideas of Sigmund Freud.

The term "phallocentrism" refers to the exercise of placing the phallus at the center of explanations about the psychic and sexual constitution. This exercise has been present in most of the scientific and philosophical theories of the West, and is even visible in social organization. As a concept, phallocentrism emerged in the first half of the twentieth century to criticize to criticize different practices and knowledge, including psychoanalysis, philosophy and science.

Below we will see in more detail what phallocentrism is, where this concept comes from and what have been some of the consequences of its application.

Phallocentrism: the phallus as an original symbol

As the term itself indicates, phallocentrism is the tendency to place the "phallus" at the center of explanations about the subjective constitution; a concept that can be used as a synonym of "penis", but that is also used to designate a symbolic referent of the "phallus". but which is also used to designate a symbolic referent..

The latter comes mainly from Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, but is later taken up and criticized by some currents of philosophy, as well as by feminist theories and movements, which claim a different understanding of the psyche and sexuation.

Background and development of the concept

In the late 18th and early 19th century, Sigmund Freud developed a theory of psychosexual development. in which he proposed that the psychic constitution of the subjects passes through the awareness of sexual difference.

This awareness brings with it two possibilities: to have or to lack the valued object. This object is the penis, and carries with it a symbolic value which later (in Lacanian psychoanalysis) is transferred to other elements beyond the anatomical structure.

From infancy, whoever carries the penis enters a phase of psychic structuring based on the threat of castration (i.e., of losing the phallus). On the contrary, those who do not have it go through a structuring process based mainly on this lack, which generates a constitutive envy called "penis envy".

Thus, the phallus was at the center of this theory of psychosexual development, maintaining that the feminine psychic constitution occurred as a negation of the masculine, or as a supplement to it.

The phallus, later understood as a symbolic referent, and its bearer, the male subject, are thus positioned at the center of the female psychic constitution, are thus positioned at the center of the explanations of psychic and sexual development..

First criticisms

Reactions and opposition to the psychoanalytic theory of psychosexual development occurred both outside and within the same circle of Freud's disciples. One of them, Karen Horney, was an important critic of the penis envy theory, and argued that the psychoanalytic constitution of the psycho-sexual constitution of the psycho-sexual development of the psycho-sexual.and argued that the psychic constitution of women was not necessarily traversed by such resentment.

Like Melanie Klein, Horney defended that there is a primary femininity, which is not a derivation or negation of the male psychosexual constitution.

Already in the 1920s, the psychoanalyst and later biographer of Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones, took up the criticisms that Klein and Horney had made of the penis envy theory, to argue that psychoanalytic postulates made by men were strongly charged with a "phallocentric" vision.

It was the latter that formally gave rise to the concept of "phallocentrism", and since Freudian psychoanalysis did not initially distinguish between the phallus and the penis, the term was used exclusively to speak of the empowerment of men. to speak of male empowerment..

It was not until the Lacanian psychoanalytic theory that the "phallus" ceased to correspond necessarily to the anatomical structure, and came to designate that which is at the center of the object of desire of each subject.

Decades later, the latter was taken up and criticized by philosophers and feminists, as it maintained the primacy of the phallus as the origin and center of power, psyche and sexuation at different scales.

Phallocentrism and phallogocentrism

We have seen that the term "phallogocentrism" refers to a system of power relations that promote and perpetuate the phallus as the transcendental symbol of empowerment (Makaryk, 1995).

Part of the latter was popularized in the second half of the twentieth century, when the philosopher Jacques Derrida used it in one of the most representative critiques of the contemporary era.

According to Galvic (2010) Derrida argues that, just as historically writing has been established as a supplement or accessory to speech (of logos), women have been constituted as supplements or accessories to males.

From there, he establishes a parallelism between logocentrism and phallocentrism, and generates the term "phallogocentrism", which refers to the solidarity of both processes; or rather, he argues that they are inseparable phenomena.

Thus, phalogocentrism ensures both the binary and hierarchical male/female opposition, as well as the "masculine order", or at least, it warns that such opposition may give way to exclusion (Glavic, 2010).

The feminist perspective

Beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, feminist movements have criticized how psychoanalysis, and later some scientific theories, have been organized around the idea of man as "a whole." Some of these critiques took up an important part of Derrida's theoretical development..

For example, Makaryk (1995) tells us that phallocentrism has sustained a system of power relations that includes what Derrida called "the master narratives of Western discourse": the classic works of philosophy, science, history and religion.

In these narratives, the phallus is a referent of unity, authority, tradition, order, and associated values. For the same reason, much of feminist criticism, especially Anglo-American, tends to relate the phallus to the phallocentric, tends to relate phallocentrism to patriarchy, pointing out that, frequently, phallus is a referent of unity, authority, tradition, order, and associated values.It is often pointed out that the most empowered people are precisely those who are male-sexed.

Nevertheless, and from different perspectives, for example in decolonial approaches, these latter debates have been transferred to make critiques within feminism itself.

Bibliographical references:

• Makaryk, I. (1995). Encyclopedia of contemporary literary theory. University of Toronto Press: Canada.
• Ernest Jones (S/A). Institute of Psychoanalysis, British Psychoanalytical Society. Retrieved August 27, 2018. Available at http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ernest-jones.
• Phallocentrism (2018). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 27, 2018. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallocentrism.
• Galvic, K. (2010). The maternal operation in Jacques Derrida: problems and possibilities for a deconstruction of the feminine. Thesis for the degree of Magister in Philosophy with Mention in Axiology and Political Philosophy. University of Chile.
• Bennington, G. and Derrida, J. (1994). Jacques Derrida, Madrid: Cátedra.
• Al Sur de Todo (2013). For a certain feminism of deconstruction. Notes to the notion of phalogocentrism. Multidisciplinary journal of gender studies. Retrieved August 27, 2018. Available at http://www.alsurdetodo.com/?p=485.
• Promitzer, C., Hermanik, K-J. and Staudinger, E. (2009). (Hidden) Minorities: language and ethnic identity between central europe and the balkans. LIT Verlag: Germany.
• Surmani, F. (2013). Critiques of the alleged phallocentrism of psychoanalysis. The debate with gender and queer theories. V Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología XX Jornadas de Investigación Noveno Encuentro de Investigadores en Psicología del MERCOSUR. Faculty of Psychology-University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
• Peretti, C. (1989). Interview with Jacques Derrida. Politics and Society, 3: 101-106.