Talk:Phallogocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[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?
- 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. --68.193.53.233 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[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)
- 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)
[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)
[edit] Register content problems in article
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)
[edit] Split articles
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)
[edit] A little off topic
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 82.118.113.164 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
