Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup issues[edit]

  • 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 privileges 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)[reply]

  • 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?
Yes! They are related, yet entirley different concepts. People are merely confusing them because the names sound similar. Create separate articles, I say. Don't make them redirect. -- 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logocentrism, phallocentrism, and phallogocentrism are all distinct and non-synonymous constructs deserving of their own articles. Phallologocentrism is precisely the same thing as phallogocentrism but the shorter spelling for the word is the one much more widely in use. I think phallologocentrism began as a misspelling of the word and was duplicated by a few other deconstructionists, but that it should be phased out in favor of the briefer spelling preferred by Derrida himself, who coined the term.Dan Quigley (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Logocentrism and Phallogocentrism[edit]

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

These two things are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmakis (talkcontribs) 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  • Yes, phallogocentrism is found in a lot of work by feminist theorists such as Hélène Cixous, and has a distinctly different meaning from both phallocentrism and logocentrism - the combination of the two is not a subtle difference to gloss over. Similarities and differences are being pointed to here. Phallogocentrism is often explained in relation to definitions of femininity and the feminine in terms of "lack" - in relation to the male, in psychoanalytic theory, the feminine is only defined as "lacking" that which is male (except there is much more to it than this) Jmn519 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Jmn519 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

This is a reference which I found which may be used in this regard: http://www.sens-public.org/article.php3?id_article=312

Also I think the article on phallocentrism and phallogocentrism should be the same with different headings for each concept and explaining the distinction. I have come across some articles in academic journals that use the terms inter-changeably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this link: http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=858 for a clear discussion of why the histories of phallocentrism (a term in psychoanalysis long before it crossed into literary theory) and phallogocentrism (a term in literary theory that evolved into a term in feminist cultural critique) are different and should NOT be considered interchangeable.

Register content problems in article[edit]

I agree with the above discussion, this article appears to be quite misleading, if not plain wrong. I think the casual reader, one who does not generally venture onto the discussion page, needs to be warned of the innaccuracy of this article. To this end, I have added a simple disputed content warning to the page, which should direct the reader here until this problem has been resolved. Fourdegrees 12:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split articles[edit]

Hi, I decided to be bold and split the articles, using some of the Deconstruction article to provide some instances of Logocentrism. Hope I didn't offend anyone by making this move, the consensus seemed to be that the two terms are different with phallogocentrism being a subset of logocentrism, in which case the split is clearly merited. Hope this helps to get rid of the disputed tags asap as the current page is not entirely helpful in explaining the concepts. Martin Hinks 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little off topic[edit]

But does anybody else think Phallogocentric is a stupid word? I mean, it isn't necessary. It seems like a boring conceit coined so dusty old researchers can get through an entire paper without writing the word penis more than five times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Critical theory by french feminists that uses such terminology has in fact been criticized for being overly esoteric, but the terminology has been around long enough and used in enough important work to merit an accurate entry, I think. Jmn519 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But concepts like this are (a) laughed at by academics outside this particularly isolated section of lit-crit that is dying, and (b) ignored by the other 98% of people, who rightfully regard nonsense like this as having no impact whatsoever on anything. I don't see why this (rather paltry and uninformative) article needs to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can a word be "stupid"? Maybe we need to read more of Derrida's work if we believe words are able to be stupid. Also, the words "penis" and "phallus" do not have the same meaning, so using a word based on "phallus" is not simply a way of not having to say "penis".
-Pietro24.84.229.90 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results from FactBites[edit]


  • 20th WCP: Classical Greek Philosophical Paideia in Light of the Postmodern Occidentalism of Jacques Derrida (2312 words)

1. On the one hand, the phallogocentric argument as defended by Derrida carries on the Romantics' concern with the darker sides of Western culture: the hidden prejudices, unquestioned assumptions and unacknowledged marginalizations. 2. The exponents of the phallogocentric argument, however, self-aggrandizingly elide the fact that Greek philosophical paideia is deeply infused with the accomplishments as well as the failings, the extensions as well as the limitations of both rationality and patriarchal masculinity. 3. The phallogocentric argument simply obfuscates the dynamic of the on-going cultural dialectic between apodictic and aporetic gnosis in the West. Wclay (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Entries[edit]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Phallogocentric Who should be referencing who here? Wclay (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Phrasing[edit]

"Men are better than women, even to this day most of society know it." Does anyone else find this quote to be implicating this opinion as a fact? I could be interpreting the sentence wrong, but that's how it seems, so I thought I would quickly point that out. Adiemery42 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources issue in criticism section[edit]

I don't see any evidence that the "Nebula" website is a reliable source, nor that W. A. Borody is a recognized expert in philosophy. Is it not possible to find criticism in any peer reviewed sources? Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference at the end to the work of a professor at Nipissing university seems irrelevant (insofar as many more influential voices have framed deep critiques of the concept and find no mention) and potentially misleading to those unfamiliar with this area of philosophical thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]