Falocentrism: what it is and what does it tell us about our society

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 a large part of Western scientific and philosophical theories, and it is even visible in social organization. As a concept, phallocentrism arises in the first half of the 20th century to criticize different practices and knowledge, among which are psychoanalysis, philosophy and science.

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

• Related article: "Types of sexism: the different forms of discrimination"

Phalocentrism: 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; concept that can be used as a synonym for “penis”, but that it 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 feminist theories and movements, which claim a different understanding of the psyche and of the sexuation.

• You may be interested: "The 4 main branches of Anthropology: what they are like and what they investigate"

Background and concept development

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, 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: having or lacking 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 childhood, whoever carries the penis enters a phase of psychic structuring based on the threat of castration (that is, of losing the phallus). On the contrary, those who do not have it goes through a structuring process based mainly on this lack, which generates a constitutive envy that was called “penis envy”.

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

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

• Related article: "Sigmund Freud's 5 Stages of Psychosexual Development"

First criticisms

Reactions and oppositions to the psychoanalytic theory of psychosexual development occurred both outside and within Freud's own circle of disciples. One of them, Karen Horney, critically criticized the penis envy theoryher, and she maintained that the psychic constitution of women was not necessarily pierced by such resentment.

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

As early as the 1920s, the psychoanalyst and later biographer of Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones, took up the criticisms that Klein and Horney had made of penis envy theory, to argue that the psychoanalytic postulates made by men were heavily loaded with a vision "Phallocentric".

The latter was what formally gave rise to the concept of "phallocentrism", and since in the beginning the Freudian psychoanalysis did not distinguish between the phallus and the penis, the term was used exclusively to talk about the empowerment of men.

It is until Lacanian psychoanalytic theory that the "phallus" ceased to correspond necessarily with the anatomical structure, and goes on to designate what is in the center of the object of desire of each subject.

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

Phalocentrism and phallogocentrism

We have seen that the term "phallocentrism" 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 became popular in the second half of the 20th century, when the philosopher Jacques Derrida used it in one of the most representative critiques of contemporary times.

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

From there, it establishes a parallel between logocentrism and phallocentrism, and generates the term “phallogocentrism”, which refers to the solidarity of both processes; or rather, it holds that these are inseparable phenomena.

Thus, phallogocentrism ensures both the binary and hierarchical male / female opposition, and the “Masculine order”, or at least, alerts that such opposition may lead to exclusion (Glavic, 2010).

The perspective of feminism

Starting in the second half of the 20th century, feminist movements have criticized how psychoanalysis, and later some scientific theories have been organized around the idea of ​​man as "a everything". Part of these criticisms 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 is Derrida called "the master narratives of Western discourse": the classics of philosophy, science, history, and religion.

In these narratives, the phallus is a reference for unity, authority, tradition, order, and associated values. For this reason, a large part of feminist criticism, especially Anglo-American, tends to associate phallocentrism with patriarchy, pointing out that, frequently, the most empowered people are precisely the male-sexed subjects.

However, and from different perspectives, for example in decolonial approaches, these latest debates have moved to criticize within feminism itself.

Bibliographic 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 in http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ernest-jones.
• Phallocentrism (2018). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 27, 2018. Available in 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 to obtain a Master's degree in Philosophy with a Mention in Axiology and Political Philosophy. University of Chile.
• Bennington, G. and Derrida, J. (1994). Jacques Derrida, Madrid: Chair.
• South of Everything (2013). For a certain feminism of deconstruction. Notes to the notion of phallogocentrism. Multidisciplinary journal of gender studies. Retrieved August 27, 2018. Available in 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). Criticisms of the supposed phallocentrism of psychoanalysis. The debate with gender theories and queer theories. V International Congress of Research and Professional Practice in Psychology XX Research Conference Ninth Meeting of Researchers in Psychology of MERCOSUR. Faculty of Psychology-University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
• Peretti, C. (1989). Interview with Jacques Derrida. Politics and Society, 3: 101-106.