Existence Of The Author As An Individual example essay topic

M. Foucault, 'What is an Author?" Michel Foucault (1926-1984) dealt with many aspects of social philosophy during his career, but it is his philosophy surrounding the role and dominance of the author in modern literature that this essay aims to deal with. From the 19th century onwards, Foucault notices that through social and political frameworks, the presence of an author vastly dominates the content and categorization of any publication of that author. He also throws into question the idea of when an author becomes an author and what writings that he produces should become known as his work. The example he gives refers to items such as letters of correspondence or even simple lists that although might have been constructed by the same author of a canonical text, are not recognised as works of literature. What makes works of literature stand out is the content. Indeed, if one can recognise some basic principles of an authors works that may be used to relate previously anonymously published work, does that not disprove the existence of an original author.

Foucault argues that when these common principles are identified (he himself recognises four in this essay) another could simply produce identically styled work according to these, thus rendering the author obsolete. When considering Marx or Freud who both claim in their work that an individual is only a component of the unconsciousness or political agenda, how can an author as an individual even exist? He recognises the author as a fleeting figure, only known through the "singularity of his absence and his link to death" (p. 1624) and thereby questions further the role of the individual. Firstly, one must consider the rise of the author and how the idea of the figure's importance came to be. Foucault considers Greek mythology when debating this c laming that once it was the hero in such plays that was granted his immortality and the author remained largely anonymous. In the middle ages, this assumption changed as names of those who were involved in scientific discoveries were used to verify their truthfulness.

Foucault states that in arguments, statements were in the order of "Hippocrates says... or Pliny tell us that... ". (p. 1629). This changed in the seventeenth and eighteenth century during the boom of scientific discoveries as that which was held true in scientific spheres was simply part of a greater truth. There was no need to verify the author as the facts were self evident through their existence. It was towards the end of this time however that the author's role became important once more. Literature was assigned real authors, not for the sake of vanity but in the case of those who "became subject to punishment and to the extent that his discourse was considered transgressive" (p 1628). At this point it would be wise to identity what Foucault means by 'discourse' as it is a word that he uses a lot in this essay.

In its simplest terms, it refers to language in relation to publications that went outside the assumptions society held true in any social or political sense. It is seeing outside the framework, if you will, of any major aspect of a society. It was only by stepping outside this did an author draw sufficient attention to himself to require identification. Ironically enough, this system of negative identification became the normality for published literature towards the end of the nineteenth century with "the emergence of ownership and strict copyright rules" (p. 1628).

Foucault recognises that "the transgressive properties always intrinsic to the act of writing became the forceful imperative of literature" (p. 1628). The fundamental problem with this is the inability to define what should be classed as literature. One cannot place so much emphasis on the creator over the creation. Do we class all the published works by Shakespeare as literature?

If tomorrow, an unpublished work of his was discovered, would that automatically become classed as worthwhile by default? If a letter cannot have an author, just a signatory then what writings by an author can be classed as literature? As the author's name became an intrinsic part of literature, so did the restrictions surrounding an author's work. This relates to the two different applications of an author's name - the designation and the descriptive.

When there is "a modification of the designation that links the name to a person" (p. 1626), it can affect the function of the name in relation to an author's work. The example Foucault gives is if it was found today that Shakespeare did not in fact write his sonnets, it would change our perceptions and even alter the value attributed to them. "The author remains at the contours of texts - separating one from the other, defining their form, and characterizing their mode of existence" (p. 1628) An author's name now serves to separate different texts and define them almost independently of their actual content. With this emphasis on the author, it becomes apparent that the authorship is a valuable, irreplaceable thing and that no other could have constructed the same works. But the system of categorization used in itself is used by Foucault to contradict this idea. For example, if there is a clear distinction between a modern day author and an eighteenth century one, then surely some broader sense of distinction must exist.

If a researcher is trying to trace the author of a piece of literature, does he not consider more than simply the name. There could be hundreds of authors with the same name so one looks outside this distinction to other factors. Foucault recognises four points of distinction that one consider. The first is "the author is defined as a standard level of quality" (p. 1630) meaning that if an author is recorded as consistently of a high quality, he is less likely to have weaker, anonymous works associated with him. Secondly, "the author is defined as a certain field of conceptual or theoretical coherence" (p. 1630). In other words, an author becomes defined through his discourse as that is how they become noticed within society.

Accordingly anonymous works of a similar content are related to an outstanding representative of that field based on apparently consistent thought processes. Thirdly, "the author is seen as a stylistic uniformity" (p. 1630) which relates to the general style of composition and language and linking author's works accordingly. And lastly, "the author is thus a definite historical figure in which a series of events converge" (p. 1630). Samuel Peeps and his diary, for example, gave unprecedented information on what it was like to witness both the Great Fire and the 'Black Death' of the late 1600's.

Consequently, he would be the first to bear consideration should other diaries of similar years appear. The point Foucault makes through these considerations is that there must be a definable aspect of an author's conscious or of their unconsciousness where "contradictions are resolved" (p. 1630). There must be a basic blueprint to constructing texts that if carefully followed could to an extent render authors as individual mindsets completely redundant. Foucault parallels this concept to those of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud both of whom considered the average person to be no more than a construction of political agendas or the unconscious mind. There are those however that Foucault believes are what truly an author should be. It is Marx and Freud who are cited as being amongst those who achieve what may be called permanent discourse outside of their published works.

Whilst other researchers may use them as points of reference and build on what they have initiated, they are simply remaining within the field of discourse that has already been started. Foucault recognises that while it may seem that these philosophies seem to run parallel to scientific endeavours, an "examination of Galileo's works could alter our knowledge of the history, but not the science, of mechanics; whereas, a re-examination of the books of Freud and Marx can transform our understanding of psychoanalysis or Marxism" (p. 1634). It is only through the endless discourse that these minds created can they be accredited as more than simply names associated with the books. This is Foucault's argument against the present system of identification amongst literature and philosophy and his inspiration for a new set of principles against which publications must be judged.

He ends his lecture with four questions that he believes would be more beneficial when considering publications"; What are the modes of existence of this discourse?"Where does it come from; how is it circulated; who controls it?"What placements are determined for possible subject?"Who can fulfil these diverse functions of the subject?" (p. 1636). Placing emphasis on the repercussions of work within a society and the potential of them rather than basing understanding on an author that arguably may not even exist. To summarise Foucault's argument is to consider the role of the author both in any publication accredited to them and relating anonymous work to those of similar workings. He traces the emergence of the author as a point of reference, arguing that literature has become incorporated into the social fabric and that discourse, the basis of great works, has simply become a normality rather than the isolated triumph it once was. The author's more defined role links him closer to his absence and ultimately death.

His argument is critical of the rise of the author as merely a point of solid reference on the basis of little more than similarities in works. He condemns the system of categorizing that apparently moves away from understanding and social impact and relates far more specifically to the praise of those who wrote it when in fact, a prominent text exists because its content was sufficient to be classed as discourse. By examining the methods used to achieve the present, weak system of placement, Foucault disproves even the existence of the author as an individual, citing both Marx and Freud to demonstrate that an individual is not of their own construction, rather they are subject to mental and political influences that are unavoidable. With this in mind, he creates new questions that should be asked when considering the worth of a publication that serves to place emphasis on understanding the discourse over an individual. Beckett is quoted appropriately in relation to this with "what matter who's speaking?" (p. 1636).