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 the scientific and philosophical theories of the West, and 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.

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

Phallocentrism: the phallus as the original symbol

As the term itself indicates, phallocentrism is the tendency to place the “phallus” at the center of explanations of the subjective constitution; a concept that can be used as a synonym for “penis”, 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 of sexuation.

Background and development of the concept

At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, Sigmund Freud developed a theory of psychosexual development in which he proposed that the psychic constitution of the subjects goes 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 is later (in Lacanian psychoanalysis) transferred to other elements beyond the anatomical structure.

From childhood, the person carrying the penis enters a phase of psychic structuring based on the threat of castration (i.e. losing the phallus). On the other hand, those who do not have it go 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 female psychic constitution occurred as a denial of the male one, or as a supplement to it.

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

First reviews

The reactions and oppositions to the psychoanalytic theory of psychosexual development occurred both outside and within the same circle of Freud’s disciples. One of them, Karen Horney, criticized in an important way the theory of penis envy , and held that the psychic constitution of women was not necessarily crossed by such resentment.

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

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

The latter was what formally gave rise to the concept of “phallocentrism”, and given that in the beginning Freudian psychoanalysis did not distinguish between the phallus and the penis, the term was used exclusively to speak of the empowerment of men .

It is until the Lacanian psychoanalytic theory that the “phallus” stopped necessarily corresponding to the anatomical structure, and started to designate that which is in the center of the object of desire of each subject.

Decades later, the latter was taken up again 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.

Phallocentrism 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 reviews of the contemporary era.

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

From there, he establishes a parallelism between logocentrism and phalocentrism, and generates the term “phalogocentrism”, which refers to the solidarity of both processes; or rather, he maintains that they are inseparable phenomena .

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

The Feminist Perspective

Since 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 whole”. Some 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 Derrida called “the master narratives of Western discourse”: the classic works of philosophy, science, history and religion.

In such narratives, the phallus is a reference of unity, authority, tradition, order, and associated values. For the same reason, much of the feminist criticism, especially Anglo-American, tends to relate phallocentrism with patriarchy , pointing out that, frequently, the most empowered people are precisely the subjects sexed in masculine.

However, and from different perspectives, for example in the decolonial approaches, these last debates have moved to make criticisms 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 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 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 All (2013). For a certain feminism of deconstruction. Notes on the notion of phallogocentrism. 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). Criticisms of the alleged phallocentrism of psychoanalysis. The debate with gender theories and queer theories. V International Congress of Research and Professional Practice in Psychology. XX Jornadas de Investigación Noveno Encuentro de Investigadores en Psicología del MERCOSUR. School of Psychology-University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
  • Peretti, C. (1989). Interview with Jacques Derrida. Politics and Society, 3: 101-106.