 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Incritical theory anddeconstruction,phallogocentrism is aneologism coined byJacques Derrida to refer to the privileging of the masculine (phallus) in the construction of meaning.[1] The term is ablend word of the older termsphallocentrism (focusing on the masculine point of view) andlogocentrism (focusing on language in assigning meaning to the world).
Derrida and others identifiedphonocentrism, or the prioritizing of speech over writing, as an integral part of phallogocentrism. Derrida explored this idea in his essay "Plato's Pharmacy".[2]
In contemporary literary and philosophical works concerned with gender, the term "phallogocentrism" is commonplace largely as a result of the writings of Jacques Derrida, the founder of the philosophy ofdeconstruction, which is considered by many academics to constitute an essential part of the discourse of postmodernism.[3] Deconstruction is a philosophy of "indeterminateness" and its opposing philosophy, "determinateness". According to deconstruction, indeterminate knowledge is "aporetic", i.e., based on contradictory facts or ideas ("aporias") that make it impossible to determine matters of truth with any degree of certitude; determinate knowledge, on the other hand, is "apodictic", i.e., based on facts or ideas that are considered to be "true", from one perspective or another.
The phallogocentric argument is premised on the claim that modernWestern culture has been, and continues to be, both culturally and intellectually subjugated by "logocentrism" and "phallocentrism".Logocentrism is the term Derrida uses to refer to the philosophy of determinateness, while phallocentrism is the term he uses to describe the way logocentrism itself has been genderized by a "masculinist (phallic)" and "patriarchal" agenda. Hence, Derrida intentionally merges the two terms phallocentrism and logocentrism as "phallogocentrism".
The French feminist thinkers of the school ofécriture féminine also share Derrida's phallogocentric reading of 'all of Western metaphysics'. For example,Cixous & Clément (1975) decry the "dual, hierarchical oppositions" set up by the traditional phallogocentric philosophy of determinateness, wherein "death is always at work" as "the premise of woman's abasement", woman who has been "colonized" by phallogocentric thinking.[4] According to Cixous & Clément, the 'crumbling' of this way of thinking will take place through a Derridean-inspired, anti-phallo / logocentric philosophy of indeterminateness.
Swedishcyberphilosophy authorsAlexander Bard andJan Söderqvist propose a critique of Derrida's interpretation of phallogocentrism in their works.[5][6][where?][full citation needed] They advocate a return to phallic vision as fundamental and necessary for western civilization after 1945. They regard this phallic return as materialized through technology rather than through ever more academic discourse. In response to Derridaet al., Bard & Söderqvist propose that the phallogocentric project – which they calleventology – rather needs to be complemented with a return tonomadology, or the myth ofthe eternal return of the same, a matrichal [sic] renaissance which they claim has already materialized in system theory andcomplexity theory, from which both feminism and androgynism are merely later but welcome effects. According to Bard & Söderqvist it is merely the centrism and not the phallogos in itself which has ever been problematic.[5][6][importance?]
French philosopherCatherine Malabou, part-time collaborator with Derrida himself, has taken a similar constructive critical approach to the idea of phallogocentrism, for exampleMalabou (2007).[7][full citation needed] Going into dialogue withpsychoanalytic masters likeSigmund Freud,Jacques Lacan and most recentlyAlain Badiou – to whose philosophy of the event, Malabou responds with a radicaltraumatology firmly rooted in the neurosciences – her take is simply that psychoanalysis is inadequate to respond to the challenges she forwards due to its phallogocentrist fixation, a dilemma she believes the neurosciences are better fit to solve. The name of her solution to this problem isplasticity.[citation needed]
The deconstruction ofphallogocentrism from duel to duo
