Authorship in the Discursive Perspective
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22040943 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Oleksandr Loiko (0009-0002-9933-0984, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University), Nataliia Popova (0000-0002-8168-1017, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Issue | 71 |
| Pages | 170-188 |
| Publication date | 2024-12-23 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of V N Karazin Kharkiv National University Series Philosophy Philosophical Peripeteias (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2226-0994 • E-ISSN: 2414-5904 |
| Publisher | V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.26565/2226-0994-2024-71-15 |
| OpenAlex | W4408772617 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 13 |
The article is dedicated to the problem of authorship from the perspective of Michel Foucault's analysis of discourse functions. It concludes that Foucault's concept of the «death of the author» significantly differs from Roland Barthes' version. While Barthes replaced the author as the source of meaning with «writing» Foucault aimed not merely to reject authorship but to point out the fictitious and ideological nature of the presumption of «foundation» or «origin» which all forms of «power-knowledge» in European transcendentalism appeal to. For this reason, Foucault finds the simple abolition of the concept of «authorship» in favor of «writing» (the position of the «Tel Quel» group, whose informal leader was Roland Barthes) unacceptable. According to Foucault, both «writing» and «authorship» are merely new signifiers of «origin» making them anachronisms perpetuating the tradition of European transcendentalism. Foucault views transcendentalism as a historical mode of thought rather than a present reality. Similarly, Foucault rejects replacing the idea of «authorship» with the concept of «work» as it implies «unity» and «coherence» of intent and thereby indirectly supports belief in the individuality of the author, transcendent to the text itself. Both «writing» and «work» for Foucault, are pseudo-universals that have replaced the previous one («author») while preserving its constitutive features (primacy, coherence, continuity, teleology). In contrast, Foucault's program of «decentering» demands a perspective that does not privilege any «center» be it «author», «writing» or «work». The emergence of the concept of «author function» like other discursive «functions» is recognized in the article as a result of the strategy of «decentering» Unlike the concepts of «authorship», «writing» and «work», which preserve the idea of «origin» and «coherence» of discourse, the «author function» is characterized as a procedure whose effect applies only to certain types of discourse. Both the historical nature (i.e., discreteness) of these types of discourse and the «author function» itself are acknowledged. Moreover, the article describes, analyzes, and illustrates the entire range of procedures controlling the production of discourse according to Foucault. The presence of a significant number of discursive constraint procedures prevents the «author function» from being regarded as a «central» procedure, avoiding its treatment as another modification of «origin» (similar to «writing» or «work»)
Art · Epistemology · Linguistics · Sociology · Visual arts · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|