hice edited by Paul Rabinow Aesthetics, Method, and Eptstemology ‘ited by James D. Faubion MICHEL FOUCAULT AESTHETICS, METHOD, AND EPISTEMOLOGYfo cee ee er mee Seca een ee re saree etree oe Secon oe ee eee ed Seen scene oeennans Sea sip caceenaere rena eet Eee ceens mabe arte aoe eee at ee eee Soe ee tas Sierras en ee euecieeremoeermmseemrers Eee eae208 Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology 1 say “ethical” because this indifference ely nots tall characer- zing the manner in which one speaks and wits but, rather, a kindof immanent rule taken up o¥er and over again, never ily applied, not designating writing a something completed, but dominating It as ‘ractce Since itis too familar to require a lengthy analysis, ths ine ‘manent rule can be adequately ilustated here by acing two ofits major hemes. First ofall, we can say that today’s writing has feed itself from the ‘heme of expression. Referring only to itself, but without being ro- svete to the confines of is intriorty, writing is identified with ts ‘own unfolded exterior. This means that itis an interplay of signs arranged less according to its signified content than according to the very nature of the signifier Writing unfolds ke a game that Ye that fnvariably goes beyond its own roles and transgresss it imi, In ‘writing, the point not lo manifest or exalt he at of writing, nor sit to pina subject within language is rather, a question of creating space into which the writing subject constantly disappears, ‘The second theme, writing’ relationship with death, i even more familar. This link subverts an old tradition exemplified ty the Greek ele, which was intended to perpetsat the immorality of the her: ‘ho was willing to de young, it was s0 that hie life, consecrated and ‘magnified by death, might pass into immortality, the narrative then ‘edeemed ths accepted death In another way, the motivation aswell ‘asthe theme and the pretext of Arabian naratives~sich as The Thow Sand and One Nights-Wwas alo the eluding of death: one spoke telling tories into the early morning, in order to forestall death to postpone ‘the day of reckoning that would silence the narrator. Scheherzade’s narrative isan eff, renewed each nigh, to keep death onde the diree of ie Our culture has metamorphose this dea of narrative, or writing as something designed to ward off death. Writing has become linked to serifiee, evento the sacrifice of if: i Is now a voluntary eface- ‘ment that doesnot need tobe represented in books, since its brought about in the writer's very existence. The work, which once had the duty of providing immortality, now possesses the rg to Kil to be ts ‘author's murderer, as in the eases of Flaubert, Proust, and Kafka. That ‘snotall, however: this telationshlp between wriing and death is also ‘manifested in the effacement ofthe waithg subject's individual char Actristic. Using al the contrivances that he sets up between himeelt What Ian Author? 207 and what he writes, the writing subject cancels out the signs of is particular individually. Asa res, the mark of the writer i reduced to nothing more thaa the singularity of his absence; he must assume the role ofthe dead man inthe game of Writing. ‘None ofthis fe recent; criticism and philosophy took note of the Aisappearance-or death ofthe author some ime ago. But the conse= ‘quences oftheir discovery oft have not been suictently examined, ror has its import been accurately measured. A certain number of ‘otis that are intended to replace the privileged poston ofthe a thor actualy seem to preserve that privilege and suppress the rel meaning of he disappearance. shall examine two ofthese notions, ‘oth of greet importance today. "The frat isthe idea ofthe work oeuore Is avery familiar thesis tat the task of etiam isnot to bring out the work's relationships ‘rth the author, mort reconstruct through the text a thought or expe ence, but rather to analyze te work Unroug is structare Is arch tecture its intrnsi form, and the pay ot internal relationships. At {his point, however problem arises: What i a work? What is this furious unity which me designate ax work? Of what clement sit composed? Is it not what an author has writen? Difficulties appear {immediately Iran individual were not am author could we say that ‘what he rote, sd let behind in hie paper, oF what bas been cal Tecte of his remarks could be called a “Work? When Sade was not fonsidered an author, what was the status of his papers? Simply rolls ‘taper onto which he ceaseleslyuncoiled his fantasies during his Imprisonment ‘Even when an individual has been accepted as an author, we must st ask whether everthing that he wrote, sid, oF lft boing is part ft his work. The problem ls both theoretical and technical. When “undertaking the publication of Nietzsche's works, for example, where should one stop? Surely everything must be published, but what is “everything”? Everrhing that Nietzsche himself published, certainly. [And what about the rongh drafts for his works? Obviously. The plans for his aphorisms? Yes. The deleted passages and the notes atthe bottom ofthe page? Yes. Wha if, within a workbook filed with apho- ‘ams, one finds a reference, te notation of « mecing or of an ad Gress or a laundry list i ta work, oF nol? Why not? And so on, a infinitum, How ean one deine a work amid th millions of aces lef Dy someone afer his death? A theory of the Work docs not exis and208 Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology the empirical task of those who nafvely undertake the editing of ‘works often sulfers inthe absence of such a thory ‘We could go oven farthor: Does The Thousand and One Nights con- site a work? What about Clement of Alexandria's Mscllonie or Dingenes Lares’ Live A maltinde of questions arises with regard to this notion of the work. Consequenty, itis not enough to declare that we should do without the writer (the author) ad sy the wor ‘selE The word work and the unity that it designates are probably 28 problematicas the status ofthe author’ individuality. “Another notion which has hindered us fom ting fall measure of| the author's disappearance, blurring and concealing the moment of {his effacement and subtly preserving the author's existence, is the notion of writing (teture). When rigorously applied, this notion ‘should allow us not only to ereumvent references to the author, bat ‘also to situate his recent absence. The notion of writing as currently femploye, is concerned with neither the at of writing nor the indi- fatlon-be it symptom or sign-of 2 meaning that someone might Ihave wanted to express. Wet, with great effort, to imagine the gen- ceral condition ofeach text, the condion of both the space in whieh t Is dispersed and the ime in which i unfolds. In current usage however, the notion of writing seems to wanspose ‘the empiriealcharacterstis of the author into a wanscendental ano- nymity. We are content to efface the mare visible marks ofthe a thors empiriity by playing of, one against the other, two ways of characterizing writing, namely, the crtcal and the religous ap- proaches. Giving writing a primal taus seems to bea way ofretrans- Jating, in transcendental terms, both dhe theological atrmation of ts sacred character and the etcal affirmation ofits ceative character. ‘To admit that writing, because ofthe very history that made pos- sible, subject othe fest of oblivion and repression, seems to repre= Seat, in transcendental terms, the religious principle ofthe hidden ‘meaning (Wwhich requires interpretation) and the eral principle of ‘imple slniicauons lent determinations, and obscured contents (Gthich give rise to commentary). To imagine Writing as absence ‘seems tobe a simple repetition, in transcendental terms of both the ‘ellgious prinepleofnalterable and yet never felled tradition, and ‘he aesthtie priniple of the work’ survival ite perpetuation beyond ‘the authors deat and it enigmtic exces ia relation to in. ‘This usage ofthe dotion of writing uns the risk of maintaining the What Ian autor? 209 author’ privilege under the protection of thea prior it keeps ave, In the gray ght of neutralization, the interplay of thse representa tions that formed a paricnlar nage of the author. The author’ disap ‘pearance, whlch, since Mallarmé, has been a constantly recurring ‘event i subject to a sris of transcendental barriers. There seems bbe an important dividing ine between those who believe that they can sill Toeate today’s discontinuities [ruptures] a the historico- transcendental tradition ofthe nineteenth century and those who ty tofree themes once and forall from that edition, tis not enough, however, to repeat the empty efimation thatthe suthor has disappeared. For the same reason, it is not enoagh to keep repeating tat God and man have died a common death. Instead, we ust locate the space let empty by the author's disappearance liow ‘the aistribution of gaps and breaches, and watch fr the openings this Aisappearance smenvers, ist, we need to clarify briefy the problems arising from the use of| the author's name. What i an suthor’ name? How does i function? Far from oflering a sluton | shall only indicate some ofthe dificl- ties that presents ‘he authors name isa proper name, and derefore it ralses the problems common all proper names. (Here refer to Searle analy ‘es, among others) Obviously, one cannot tim a proper name into a pre-and simple reference. It has other than indicative funtions ‘more than an indication, a gesture, a finger pointed at someone, is the equivalent of « description. When one says “Aristo” one ext ploys a word that isthe equivalent of ene, ora series, of definite de- feriptons, such as “the author of the Analyte” “the founder of ‘ontolog." and so forth. One cannot stop there, however, because & proper name does not have just one signification, When we discover that Arthur Rimbaud didnot verite La Chase spiritual, we cannot pretend that the meaning ofthis proper name, or that ofthe author, has been altered. The proper name and the author's name are siti ated between the two poles of description and designation: they must have a certain ink with what they name, but one that i nether en tna in the mode of designation nor in that of description; it must be ‘specific ink. Howerer-end itis here thatthe particular diiculies ‘ofthe author's name arise—the links between the proper name and the individual named and between the author's name and what it210 Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology ‘names are not lsomorpe and donot function inthe same way. There ‘re several diforences. I, for example, Pierre Dupont does not have bive eyes, or was not ‘dors in Paris, oF is not a doctor, the name Pierre Dupont will til lays refer tothe same person uch things donot modily the Link of ‘designation. The problems raised by the author's name are much {nthe house we vist today, thsi a modification that, obvious rot alter the functioning of the author's name. But if we proved that Shakespeare did not wite those sonnets which pass for his, that ‘would constiste significant change and aft the manner in which the author's name Anctions. If we proved that Shakespeare wrote ‘Bacon's Organon by showing thatthe same author wrote both the ‘works of Bacon and those of Shakespeare, that would bea thin ype [Of change that would entirely modify the functioning of the author's rname.The author's name is not therefore, justa proper name ike the ‘Many other facts point out the paradoxical singular of the au- thors name To say that Perre Dupont doesnot exists not at all the fame assaying that Homer or Hermes Teismegistus id not exist. In {he ist case, itmeans that noone has the name Piere Dupont; in the ‘second, it means that several people were mixed togeber under one ‘mame, oF that the tric author had nome of the traits waditionally a ‘cribed tothe personae of Homer or Hermes. Tosa that Xs real name {s actually Jnpques Durand insted of ler Dupont isnot he same as saying that Stendhals name was Hene Beye. One could also question {he meaning and functioning of propositions lke “Bourbal is so ‘and/-9, so-and-so, and 60 ford,” and "Vitor Brea, Clmacus, Ant imacus, Frater Tacitumnus, Constantine Constants al of dese are lerkegaard” "These diferences may result fom the fact that an author's name is not simply an element ina discourse (capable of being elther subject ‘or object, of being replaced by a pronoun, andthe like); it performs a ‘certain role with rogard to narrative discourse, assuring a classifica- tory fnetion. Such a name permits one to group togeer a certain ‘numberof texts, define them, difleratite them fromand contrast ‘thom to others. In addition, i establishes a relationship among the texts. Hermes Tismeogistus didnot exist, nar did Hippocrates~in the sense that Halzac existed~but the fact that several texts have been What Isa Author? a placed under the same name indicates that there hasbeen established ‘among them «relationship of homogeneity, Siaton, authentication of some texts by the use of others, reciprocal explication, or concomitant utilization. Tho author's name serves to charncerize a certain mode ofbeing of discourse: the fet tha the discourse hasan athoes name, that one an say “this was wtten by so-and-so" or “so-and-so i ts ‘authon® shows that this diacouse Is not orinary everyay speech hat ‘merely comes and goes not something that s immediatly consima- able. On the contrary, itis a speech that must be received ina certain ‘move and tha ina given culture, must receive a certain statis. It would seem thatthe author's nam, unlike ater proper names, ‘doesnot pas fom te interior fa discourse tothe res and exterior Individual who producod it instead, the name seems always to be brefent marking othe edges ofthe text, revealing oF t least charac terzing, its mode of eng, The authors name manifests the appear lance of a cartain discursive set and indicates the status of this ‘iscours within a society and wenltre.Ihas no legal sts, nr ist Jocetedin the ion ofthe work rather, itis located in the break that founds a certain discursive construct and its very particular mode of being, As a result, we could say that in a evization lke our own, there area certain number of dxcoarses endowed with the “euthor function” while oders are deprived of i. A pevate leer may well, hhavea signer—itdoes not have an author contract may Well have ‘guarantor-itdoes nothave an author. An anonymons text posted on ‘wallprobebly has an eiifor~butnotan author The author function is therefore characterise ofthe mode of existence, culation, and functioning of certain discourses within a socie'y. {Let us analyze thls “author funtion” a8 we have just desribed i In four culture, how dots one characterize a discourse containing the ‘author fonction? In what way is this discourse diferent from oder ‘iscourses? If we limit our remarks othe author of book ora tet, ‘we can Isolate four diferent characteristics. First of al, discourses are objects of appropriation. The form of ‘ownership fom which they spring is of a rather particular type one {hat has been codifed for many years. We should note tha, histori cally this type of ownership has always been subsequent to what one ‘might call penal appropriation. "Texts, books, and discourses realy began to have authors (other than mythical, ecralized snd sacriaa Aesthties, Method, and Epistemology {ng figures tothe extent that authors became subject to punishment, that i to the extent that discourses could be transgressive. In our ‘culture (and doubtless in many others), discourse was not orginally & ‘roduc a thing, a kind of goods; was essentally an act~an act placed in the bipolar fel ofthe sacred andthe profane, the ict and {he ilo, the religious and the blasphemous. Historically, it was & teste fraught with risks Deore becoming goods caught up in 8 ei uit of ownership. ‘Once a ystem of ownership for txts came into being, once strict rules concerning authors rights author publisher relations, hts of reprodlion, end related matiers were enacted~at the end of the ‘ghtenth andthe beginning of the nineteenth century—the poss ity of trmsgresson atached to the act of writing tok on, more and ‘more, the form of an imperative peculiar to literature tis as If the futher, beginning with the moment at which be was placed in the System of property that characterizes our sacl, compensated for the sats that he thus aoquired hy reisovering the old biplar eld ‘of discourse, systematically practicing transgression and thereby re- oving danger to a waiting that was now guaranteed the benofits of and constant way, however. In our civilization, ithas not always been {he same types of texts that have require attribution to an author. ‘There was atime when the texts we today call "iterary” (narratives, stories, epics tragedies, comedies) were accepted, put into creala ‘on, and valorized without any question about the identity of their author; their anonymity caused no difcates since thei ancientness, ‘whether rel or imagined, was regarded as @suficient guarantee of {hele stats. On the other hand, those teats we nose would call seien- ‘iGc-thoee dealing with cosmology and the heavens, medicine and ilinesses, natural sciences and goography-were accepted in the ‘Middle Ages, and accepted as “tre” only when marked with the ‘name of their author. “Hippocrates said," *Pliny recount” were not really formulas ofan argument based om authority they were the Inarkers inserted in discourses that were sipposed lobe reeived as Statements of demonstrated truth. “Aste takes place in the seventeenth or eighteenth century Sct ‘entific discourses bogan tobe received for themselves, in the ato~ ymity of an establishod or always redemonstrable truth; helt What ian Author? as ‘membership ina systematic ensemble, and not the reference to the Individual who produced them, stood as thelr guarantee. Th author function faded awa, andthe inventor's name served only to christen ‘theorem, proposition, pariolareffle, property, body, group of ele ‘ments, or pathological syndrome. By the same token, literary dis courses came to be accepted only when endowed with the author function. We now ask of each porte or fiona text rom where docs it come, who wrote, when, under what circumstances, oF be- inning with what design? The meaning aerbed to it and the status ‘orvalue accorded it depend on the manner in which we answer these ‘questions. Anda ext should be discovered na state of anonymity Ibther at @ consequence of an acldent oF the author's explicit ‘ish=the gune beoomes one of rediscavering the author Since Iter fry anonymity isnot olerable, we ean accept tony i the guise ofan ‘tlgma, Asa result, the author function today plays an important ole {nour view of literary works. (These are obviously generalizations that would have to be refined insofar as recent etal practice fs ‘concerned. rites began some time ago o treat works according 0 ‘hele genre and type, following the recurrent elements that are ents tured in them, os proper variations around an invariant that is no Jonge the individual creator. Even 5, i'n mathematics reference to the author is barely anything any longer but a manner of naming ‘theorems or set of propositions, in biology and medicine the indica- tion ofthe author andthe date of is work play a rather diferent ole [tis not simply a manner of indicating the source, but of providing @ ‘carta index of “reality” in relation tothe tchniques and objects of| ‘experience made ise of in particular period and in such-and-sich a Taboratory) "The third characteristic ofthis author function is that it does not ‘develop spontaneously as the attibution ofa discourse to an indi- ‘vidual tis, rather, the result of complex operation that constructs a Certain being of reason that we call author” Crides doubles ty to five this being of reason a realise stats, by scoring, inthe ind- ‘ida, “deep” motive a “reaive” power, or design” the maien in which writing originates. Neverteles, these aspects ofan ind ‘idaal which we designate ax making him ax author are only a pro- jection, in more or less psychologizing terms, ofthe operations we {oree texts to undergn, the connections we make, the traits we estab lish as pertinent, the continuities we recognize, or the exclusions weau estheies, Method, and Epistemology practice, All hese operations vary according to periods and types of fiscnurse, We do not construct a “philosophical author” as we do a “poet justas in the elghtoenth century one didnot construct novel= {stas we do today. sill we can find through te ages cera constants {nthe rules of author construction, i seems for example, thatthe manner in which Uterarycrtism ‘once defied the author -or rather, constructed the figure ofthe au thor beginning with existing texts and discourses~i dreey derived from the manner in which Christan wadition jected) the ters a ts disposal In order to rediscover” an author ina ‘work, modern ertcism uses methods similar to those thet Christian ‘Cxegels employed when tying to prove the Value of a text by it ‘tutor’ santliness. In De Pri trbus Sain Jerome explains that hhomonymy isnot salient to sdentiy Tegitimately authors of more than one work diferent individuals ooo have had the same name, for one man could have, llegtimately, borrowed anothers patro fymic.The name as an individual trademark is not enough when one ‘works within a teal vadition, "iow then, cat one atlbute several discourses to one andthe same author? How ean one use the author neti to determine if one | ealing with one or several individuals? Salat Jerome proposes four criteria: (if among several books altribted to an author one is inf For tothe others, it must be withdrawn from the list of tbe authors frorks (dhe author therefore defined as a constantlevl of value); (3) the same should be dane if erin texts contradict the doctrine ex ‘pounded inthe author's other works (Ihe author is thus defined as a Feld of conceptual or theoretical coherence): () one must also ex ‘ude works that are written ina different sl, comtaining words and fexpresions not ordinarily found inthe writer's production (lhe at ‘hor is here concelved as e stylistic unity); (4 finaly, passages quot ing statements made or mentioning events that occured afer the author's death must be regarded as interpolated texts (he author here seen as historical figure atthe crossroads of certain number ‘of event), ‘Modern iterary ericsm, even when—a is now customary is not concerned with questions of audhenticaton, sll defines the au thor in much the same way the autor provides the bass or expla ing not only the presence of certain evens in a-work, but also the transformations distortions, and. diverse modifications (through his Wha san Author? a5, ‘ography; the determination of his individual perspective, the analy ss of is socal postion, and he revelation of his base design). The lator is also the principle of certain unity of wering—allaifer- ‘ences having to be resolved at est in par, by the principles of evolu ‘on, maturation, or nflence."Dhe author also serves to neutralize the ‘contradictions that may emerge na series of texts: there must be-at ‘certain level of his thought or desire, of his consciousness or ‘unconscious—e polnt where contradictions are resolved, where in ‘compatible clements are at lst ied together or organized around a fundamental oF oxginting contadicon, Finally, the author isa par~ ticular source of expression tha, n more or less complete forms, is ‘manifested equally well, and with similar vata, in works, sketches, Ietlers,agments, and so on. Clearly, Saint Jerome's four entra of suthenticlty (criteria that seem totaly insufficient for today's ex ‘getes) do define the four modalities according to which modern rt- ‘sm brings the autor function int play ‘But the author function isnot a pure and simple reconstruction ‘made secondhand from a text given as inert material The text always fontains a certain number of signs referring to the author. These Sigs, well mown to grammarian, ee personal pronouns, adverbs of {ime and place, nd verb conjugation, Such elements donot play the fame role in discourses provided with the author funtion as those lacking it Inthe Inte, such “shifters” refer to the eal speaker and to the spatiotemporal coordines of his discourse (although certain ‘modifieations can occur, as in the operation of relating discourses in the first person). Ia the former, hosteve, thelr role Is more complex land variable. Bveryone kaos than novel offered asa narrator’ ‘coount, neither the fistperson pronoun nor the present indiatve ‘efers exactly tothe writer orto the momeat in Which he writes but, ‘ater, to an alter ego whose distance from the author varies, often changing inthe course ofthe work. It would be just as wrung to ‘uae the author with the real writer as to equate im with the feti- ‘ous speaker the author funeion is casi out and operates inthe ‘esnson itself, in tis division and this distance. ‘One might object that ths is «characteristic peculiar to novelstie ‘or poetic discourse, a game in which only "quasi discourses” partil- pte, In fat however, al discourses endovred wits the author func ‘Hon posese this plait of sell. The self that speaks in the preface to ‘treatise on mathematics~and that indiates the circumstances ofa6 Aesthetics, Method, and Rplsemology the treatises composition is identical neither fn its postion norin ts functioning tothe self that speaks im the course of demonstration, ‘and that appears in the form of Tconchide” or“ suppose” In the Rist fee the “Prefers to an individval without an equivalent who, in a ‘letermined place and ine, completed certain task; inthe second, the“ indicates an instance and level of demonstration which any {individual could perform provided that he accepted the sae system of symbols play of axioms and set of previous demonstrations. We ‘ould also, in the same teats, locate a third se one that speaks to tel the work's meaning, the ebstates encountered, the rel ob- tained, andthe remaining problems; this seis situated in the eld of already existing or yeto-appear mathematical discourses. The au thor funtion isnot assumed bythe fist of these selves at he expense ofthe oer two, which would then be nothing more han a cations "pling im two of the rst one. On the contrary, in these discourses the author function operates so ae to effect the dispersion of these thee simultaneous selves. 'No doubt, analysis could discover still more characteristic tats of the auitioe function, Iwill imit myself to thse four, however, because they seem both the most visible and the most important They ean be ‘unmarized as follows: @) the suihor function is inked to the Jurd- fal and instintional system that encompasses, determines, and ar- Heulates the universe of discourses; (2 it doesnot affect all discourses {the same way aall times andin all ypes of elizaton; 3) tis not deftned by the spontaneous attribution ofa discourse to its producer bu rather, bya series of specific and complex operations; 4) itdoes not refer purely and simply oa real individual, since ican glve rise simultaneously to several selves, to several subjecs—positions that ‘ean be oecupled by diferent clases of individuals, LUpto this pont Ihave unjustly Limited my subject. Certainly the suthor fution in painting, music, and other ars should have been discussed; but even supposing that we remain within the world of Aiscourse, a 1 want to do, seem to have given the term “author” ‘much too narrow a meaning. Ihave lscassed the author only inthe limited sense of person to whom the production o text, a book, oF ‘a work can be legitimately aieibuted. Its easy to se that in the sphere of dscrurse one canbe the author af mach more than a book~ fone can be the author of theory, tradition or discipline in which What tan Author? a7 ‘other books and authors wil in thelr turn find «place, These authors fare ina postion that wll all “ransdiscusive" This is recurring Dhenomenon-oertainty as old as our cvlizetion, Homer, Aristotle, fd the Church Fathers, as well asthe fist mathematicians and the Originators ofthe Hippocratic tradition ll played this role. Further ‘more, in the course ofthe ninctoenth centry, there appeared in rope another, more tncommon, kind of author, whom one should confuse with neither the “great” Iiterary authors, nor the authors of| Feligious texts, nor the founders of science. In somewhat arbitrary ‘way we shall call hoe who belong inthis last group “founders of ‘iseursiite” ‘They are unique in thet they are not ust the authors oftheir own ‘works. They have produced something ese: the possibties and the ‘les forthe formation of other teats In this sense hey are very differ: ‘ent, for example, fom a novelist, who is, n fac, nothing more then {the author of his own text Freud is nt just the author af The ncerpre- ‘ation of Dreams Jokes and Their Relation tothe Unconscious Mare {snot just the author of the Communist Mangfesto or Das Kapta: they ‘bots have established an endles possibility of discourse. Obviously, t 1s easy to object One might say that itis not true thatthe author of ‘ove is only the author of his own tet ina sense, he also, provided that he acquires some “importance,” governs and commands more than that. To take a very simple evample, one eould say that Ann Radelitf not only wrote Te Castes f dthlin and Dunbazne and sev al other novels but also made possible the appearance ofthe Got horror novel atthe begining ofthe nineteenth century; in that re spot, her author function exceeds her own work, But! think there is fan answer to this objecion. These founders of dscursvity (Fuse Mars and Freud as examples, because I believe them tobe both the Ast and the most important cases) make possible somedhing ato ther diferent from what a novelist makes possible, Ann Radel’ Texts opened the way for a certain number of resemblances and ‘analogies which have thelr model or principle inher work. The latter ‘contains characteristic signs figures, relationships, and structures ‘hat could be reused by others. In other words to eay that Ann Rad- life founded the Gothie horor novel means tht inthe ninoteenth- ‘entury Gothic novel one will nd as n Ann Radelife’s works, the ‘theme of the heroine caught inthe trap of her own innocenes, the Iden castle, the character ofthe blac, cursed hero devote to mak-a8 Acsthetes, Method, and Epistemology ing the word expat the evi done to hm, and all the ee oft Om the other hand, when Ispesk of Marx or Freud as founders of iscursiviy, mean that they made possble not only a certain number of anal: ss but also (nd equally important a certain number of ferences. "They have crated a porsblity for something other than thelr dis ‘course, et something belonging to what they founded. To say that Freud founded psychoanalysis docs not (simply) mean that We find te concept of the Hbido oF the techni of dream analysis inthe ‘works of Karl Abraham or Melanie Klint means that Freud mede potsble a certain number of divergenoes—with respect t his wn texts, concept, and ypotheses—that al arse fom the psychoanalytic Aiscoure tee “This would seem to present anew dificulty, however, or atleast a new problem: i the above not rue, afer ll, of any founder of si tence, orf any author who has introduced some transformation ito a feience that might be called fecund? Aft all, Galileo made possible ‘otonly those discourses which repeated the laws he had formulated, tot also statements very different fom what he himself had said If Georges Cuvier isthe founder of biology, or Ferdinand de Saussure the founder of linguists it not because they were imitated, nor ‘because people have since taken up again the concep of organism oF sgn; is because Cuvier made possible, to cern extent, a theory of evolution diametrically opposed to his own fxism; is Because Saussure made possible a generative grammar radically diferent from his structural analyses. Superialy then, te initiation of dis cursive practices appears similar othe founding of any scientific en eave ‘Sil, there is difrence, and a notable one. In the case ofa se- ence, the at that founds its on an equal foting with ts future trans Formations; this act becomes in some respects part of the set of ‘modifications that it makes posible. OF cours, this belonging can take several forms. Inthe future development ofa slence the found ing act may appear at litle more than partieala instance of amore phenomenon that unveils ite nthe proces ream also turn ‘ut to be marred by intulton and empirical bias; one must then refor- rmulate i, making it the object of certain number of supplementary ‘heoredcal operations that establish it more rgoromsy, and $0 0m. Filly, itcan seem to bea hasty generalization that must be retraced. nother wor, the founding act of scence can always be rent What san Author? a9 duced within the machinery of those transformations which derive from it In contrast the initiation ofa discursive practice Is heterogeneous to its subsequent transformations, To expand a type of discursiviy, ‘sueh as psychoanalysis as founded by Freud, i nt to give ita formal ‘generality it would not have permite atthe outset but, rather, © ‘pen it upto a certain numberof posible applications. To lit py. ‘hoanalyis as typeof dscursivty in realty t try to isolate in the founding act an eventually restricted numberof propositions or state ‘ments to whic, alone, one grant founding vale, and in relation to ‘which certain concepts or theories accepted by Freud might be con Sdered as derived, secondary, and accessor. In addition, one does rot declare certain propositions inthe work of these founders to be false: insted, when trying to selze the act of founding, one ses aside those statements that are not pertinent, elther because they are ‘deemed inessentia, or Because they are considered “prehistoric” and ‘derived from another type of dacansvty. kn other words unlike the founding ofa science, the initiation of a discursive practice docs ‘ot participate in its later transformations. As a esut, one defines 4 propostion’s theoretical validity in relation tothe work of the {ounders—whil, i the case of Galileo and Newton, itis in relation to ‘what physics oF cosmology sin ts intrinsic structure and normativity {hat one affirms the valibity of any proposition those men may have put forth. To phrase it very schematically: the work of inators of Aiseursivity isnot stuated inthe space that sence defines; rather, it Is the selence or the disursivity which refers back to thelr work as Primary coordinates. In this way we oan understand the inevitable necessity, within ‘hese fields of dscursvty, fora “return to the origin” This return, ‘whieh is part ofthe discursive field itself, never stops modifying It ‘The return isnot ahistorical supplement that would be added tothe Aiscursiiy, or merely an orsameat; onthe contrary, it constitutes an fective and necessary task of transforming the discursive practice Itself, Reexamination of Gailoo's text may well change our under- sanding of the history of mechanics, but i will never be abe to change mechanics set On the other hand, eexamining Freud's texts modifies psychoanalysis itself ust sa reexamination of Marx’s ‘would modify Marxism. ‘What Ihave just oulined regarding these “discursive instaura200 ethaies, Method, and Bpistemology tions is, ofcourse, very schematic; his is tue, in particlar, ofthe ‘position Ihave tried to draw between discursive ination and sc tntifi founding Ie not slays easy to distinguish between the tv0; {moreover nothing proves tht they ae two mutually exclusive proce ‘lures Ihave attempted the distinetion for only one reson: to show that the author funtion, which is complex enough when one ties 0 State it et the level of book or a series of ers that cary a given ‘Signature, involves sill more determining factors when one tes to ‘analyze it in larger unl, uch as groups of works or entire disci plines. ‘To conclude, [would keto review the reasons why Iattach certain lmportance to what The sid. ‘the one hand, an analysis in he rection that I have outined might provide for an approach oa typology of discourse. seems to in, at east af first lane, that sich a typology cannot be constructed Solely from the grammatical features, formal structures, and objects ‘of discourse: more likely there exist propertis or relationships pect liar to discourse (not reducible to the rues of grammar and log), ‘and one must use these to distinguish the major eategoric of di ‘course The relationship (or nourelationshp) with an author, andthe {hiferent forms this relationship takes, eonstinte—in a quite visible tuo tothe historical analysis of discourse. Paps itis time to study Aiscourses not only interns of thei expressive value or formal trans formations bat according to thelr modes of existence. The modes of cérvulation, valorization, attsbution, and appropriation of discourses ‘vary with each clture and are modified within exch. The manner in ‘which they are articulated according to socal relationships can be Inore readily understood, I elieve, in the activity ofthe author func tion and in ts modifications than In the themes or concepts that dis ‘oures set in motion. Thwould seem that one could so, begining with analyses ofthis ‘ype reexamine the priviloges ofthe subject. I realize that in under- taking te internal and architectonic analysis of wor (bet iter try text, philosophical sysem, or scentie work), in seting aside biographical and peychologial references, one has already called back into question the absolute charactor and founding role ofthe hat Is an Author? oo subject Sil, perhaps one must retur to this question, not n order to eesablsh the theme of an oxginting subject but to grasp the sub- Jeet points of insertion, modes of funtioning, and system of depen- ences, Doing so means overmrning the traditional problem, no longer raising the questions: How can a fee subjox penetrate the density of things and pve it meaning? How can it activate the rules of a language from within and thus give rise 1 the designs that are propery Its own? Instead, these questions willbe rlsed: How, under ‘hat conditions, and in what forms can something Uke a subject ap- ‘ear in the order of discourse? What place ean it occupy in each type ‘of discourse, what functions can it assume, and by obeying what rls? In short itis a mater of depriving the wubjec (ors subatte) ofits role as originator, and of anniyzing the subject ae a variable and ‘omplex funtion of discourse. ‘Second there are reasons dealing with the “ideological” status of ‘he author. The question then beoomes How can one reduce the great peri the grat danger with which Bction threatens our world? The lanswer is: One can reduce it with the author The autor allows & limitation of the cancerous and dangerous proliferation of significa tions within a world where ne thrifty notonly with on’ resouroes land riches butalso with one's discourses and their signfcatons, The futhor isthe pineple of tri inthe proliferation of meaning. As a ‘salt, we must enuraly reverse the tredional es ofthe author. We tare accustomed, as We have seen earlier, tn saying thatthe author is the genial creator ofa workin which he deposits, with inte wealth ‘and generosity an inexhaustible word of signiiations. We are used to thinking thatthe autor Is so different from all other men, and s0 transcendent with regard to all languages tat, as soon ashe speak, ‘meaning begins to proliferate, o proliferate indeaiey ‘The truth is quite the contrary the author is not an indefinite source of signiiations that fill work; the author does not pre- fede the works he is @ certain functional principle by whic, in our calure, one limits, excludes, and chooses; in shor, by which one Impedes the free circulation, te ree manipulation, the fee comport- tion, decomposition, and recomposition of fton. Infact, if we ere ‘acotstomed to preseating the author asa genius asa perpetual surg Ing of invention itis because, in realty, we make him funotion in ‘exactly the opposite fasion. One can say thatthe author isan ideo logical produc, since we represent him as the opposite of his historone Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology cally real function. When historically given function is represented ina figure that invert, one has an ideological production. The au thor is therelore the ideologeal figure by Which one marks the man ner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning In saying ths seem o eal fora form of eultare in which fon would not be Linited bythe figure ofthe euthor. Te wold be pare Tomanticiam, however, to imagine @ culture in which the fective ‘would operate in an absolutely fee stats, in which fiction would be put at the disposal of everyone and would develop without passing {hrough something like a necessary or constraining figure. Although, since the eighteenth century, the author has played the role of the ‘regulator ofthe ftv, a role quite characteristic af our ers of indus- ‘nal and bourgeois society, of individualism and private propa, til, iiven the historical modieatlons that are taking place, it docs not foam necessary hat the author function remain constant inform, Complexity, and even in existence [think tha, a our solety changes, latte very moment when itis in the process of changing the author function wll disappear, and in such a manner th fiction and its polysemous texts Will once again fnetion according o another mode, but sill with «syste of eonstrnt-one that will no longer be the suthor bat will have t be determined or, perhaps, experienced (c= Dirimenter “Al discourses, whatever heir status, frm, vlue, and whatever the treatment to which they willbe wubjected, would then develop inthe fanonymity ofa murmur, We would no longer hear due questions that hhave been rehashed fr so long: Who relly spoke? Is telly he and not someone else? With what authenticity or originality? And what part of his deepest self did he express in his discourse? Instead, dere ‘would be oer questions, ike these: What are the modes of existence (ofthis discourse? Where has it boen used, how can it eealats and ‘who can appropriate it for bimselP? What are the places in it where ‘here is room for possible subjects? Who ean assume these various subject fmtions? And behind all these questions, we would hear hardly anything but the stirring of an indifference: What difeence ‘does take whois speaking? 1s pe a ae py Later im Eg Caner ‘Sveum hs mth ‘op. When you go to the movies, are you struck by the sadism of ‘some recent fms, whether they take place in @ hospital or, as inthe last Pasolini a false prison? ‘x. Thave been stick -at least unt recently the absence of ‘adam, and the absence of Sade, the two not being equivalent. There ean be Sade without sadism and sadism without Sade. But let's leave aside the problem of sadism, which is more delicats, and focus on Sede. I believe that there is nothing mar allergic othe cinema thn the work of Sade, Among the musmerous reasons, this one fst: the ‘meticulousnes, the rltual the rigorous ezremonta form that all the sounes of Sade assume exclude the supplementary play of te camera. "The least addition or suppression, the smallest armament, ae intoler- able. No open fantasy, but a carefully programmed regulation. As ‘soon as something is missing or superimposed, alls lost. There is no place for an image."The blanks ms not be filed except by desires ‘and bodies. 0, In the frst part of Alexandro Jodorowsky’s EI Topo there isa bloody orgy rather revealing cutting up of bodies Is'tthe cinema’ sadism fist wey of treating ators and ther bodes? And patculsly ‘women inthe inema—are they not (mis) treated as appendages ofa male body? scr, The way in which the body steated.in contemporary ei Pevketeay enone