Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Author PDF

    Uploaded by

    nicolasfraile
    31 views7 pages

    Original Title

    Author.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31 views7 pages

    Author PDF

    Uploaded by

    nicolasfraile

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    8 Author Donald E. Pease I: CCoMON usage the term author” applics oa wide ange of activites. I can refer vo xemeone who stats up 3 game or vent 3 machine, or sets pon! reedom, or thnks up a frm, o writes a book. Depending on the Sesvty andthe application, the term can connote iiative, utoncmy inven tiveness, cratvin author, oF orginal. A common procedure whereby an Sonya agen ms ito a nda finds the erm these ion ac In tring anyone in general into someone in particular, the tenm “author” cacti long wth is common usage some longing dete ove wha skein this transformation. These debates have continsd ove ene ed have taken pice with diferent emphases in diferent Beds But ceain tions, no matter whether they were asked by pons, economists, dheolog tn, philosophers, ai, emined constant. sandal sl determined ‘oc determined by material and historia ume? Ts he hua sel inf ‘ite or Bnite? Can an individ ground politi athorty on indvidal cet yz What the bs for human feedom? Can any artist im abst aly? “Tee quenions a well ferent clr eponses to them have accom panied the erm rom ts incepeion. The vatiry ofthese espontesconsats the meaning ofthe teem. Like ther tems tha answer wo vay of appiations, “author” wil sometimes sanction uteri contradictory usages. Ache time of cs inception, for example the word “author was wed interchangeably with cs eedeceartrm “act? which dd not ec verbal inventiveness ator? Sid but the reverse—adherence to the authority of cultural antecedent. good way to sor out the varios, sometimes contradictory, meanings ofthis frm tight be by way of hitrcl marae Like most histones, his oe wl over an immense tjetory of ine in shor space, Consequently only he ‘woud outlines of is historical development wil Become apparent. Aad ony some ofthe qoetons which have shaped that development wl beaded, ‘Another question and the contemporary debate srtounding it wil provide a ‘onchsion to this brief nareative. Ts the “author” dea? The question was asked by Roland Barthes in an esay “The Death ofthe Author” ate which presumes the answer But Michel Foucaule disagreed wi his answer and wrote an esay What Is an Authoc” which raises i the terms of recent continental ccs some ofthe isos addreed in the following narrative, Because their debate ecapitults and advances those ines, a dscssion of implications forthe ‘contin sage ofthe tem wll once the history “The ides of authorship has a engehy and somewhar problematic genealogy. From the beginning ths genealogy has been asocaed with thar of related. figure, the invcual“vubjec.” Unlike oer works refering toa writer's activ ity—such as esti, or poet, or dramatist the tem “autor” tases questions shout authority and whether te individuals the source othe effect ofthat story. The word “author” derives from the medieval teem aur, which de uted 2 writer whose words commanded respect and belt. The woed autor eid rom foar etymological sources: the Latin verbs age “to actor pee Foun an tote augers, “to grow and rom the Greek noun aren, “tuthongy Inthe Mid Ages every icipline i the wir had acres (Ci cero in thetorie, Aristotle in dale, the ancient pots in grammar) and simi lly in the quad (Prlemy in steonomy, Constantin in medicine, the [ible in theology, Boehius in aichmeic) (se Minnis 1984, 1-78). Anz ‘stblsed te founding rules and principles for these difecene disciplines and Sanctioned the mora and poiicalauthorty of medieval eleure more generally (Over the centuries the consinued auhoriy of these founding figures derived from medial scribe bility to interpret, exp, and in most cases resolve historeal problems by rextaing these problems in terms sanctioned by ars ‘Such reatements command authonty because they organized otherwise accidental events into an established context capable of making them meaning. fal The continued authority ro make events meaning in customary or ta ‘ional ways provided al the evidence necessary 0 sustain the auctor power. Iv the Middle Ages, the relationship between these authontaive books and the ‘tery world was primarily an allegorical one Worldly events ook place in ‘ems sanctioned by a authoritative Book or were not acknowledge a5 having taken plac at al. To experience an vent in allegorical tems was to wanspos he ‘event out ofthe realm of one’ personal life into the realm of the applicable tuthority. Following sch a ransposion, che cven became impersonal every ‘one spctal quest rather than one individual’ personal biography. Te benefit ofthis transposition forthe indvial was inded a spstual one—the abiiryt ‘perience an erent in one’ fe 36 a eenacument of sacred custom. Any event, ‘orthing, or emotion, or thought whch made this transference int the realm of the ance: posible continied thie culural anos. Whereas individuals within medieval culture could iterpet thee lives in tems that elaborated oF reenated the saying of the ancient auctor, only the monarch, a6 Gas repre sentative, could claim divine snetion fr his everyday actions. By correlating the lvne bass for his rle with ancora precedents, dhe medieval ler sanctioned ‘the auctor culeural authori: As the source, dhe benefcian, and the agent of ‘the culture's authoritative books, the manarch waste perf carl form oF the aor: lis ule was his book, and his subjects were compeled to subaat thei ‘word tothe edict ofthat book. "Auctorial sanction and monarch ne remained more or xs unquestioned ntl ate in he fiteenh century, with the discovery of a New World whose Inhabitants, language, customs and laws, geography, nd plant and animal if ‘id not comesponl o referents in the aucore books, Unlike events and persons in medieval Europe, the ishabians and environment ofthe New World could at be explained in cuseomary terms Explorers could noe in precedes in the ‘work of auc for what they discovered in the New Woed. Ines of retur ing to their culture's ancient books for alegrial prefiguritons, many New World explorers described what they discovered by making up words of dheir ‘own (or Boring terms fom the natives). One resul of thi breaklown wat the alton ro the English language of such words as hurricane canoe, skunk, another was the loss of cultural authority fo the auc A elated effet was the appestance of whar Renasance historians now refer to a “new mem” individ: ‘ale within Renaissance culture who timed the “news” sent home from feshy liscovered lands into forms of eau empowerment for unprecedented polit ‘al actions an thei peronifation by new agents within the culture. Among ‘these new cultural agents were “authors” writers whose cli to culural author ig di noe depend onthe adherence to cura precedents baton afcsty of ‘verbal inventiveness Unlike the medieval auctor who bated his authoity om die vine revelation, an autor imu cme authority for his wonds and based his individuality on the stores be compose. ‘Moce precisely, authors exploited the dcontinuty herween the things inthe [New World andthe words inthe alent books to citim fr cir words a ‘unprecedented cultural power, 1 represear the new Authors rose tO cultural prominence in alae with ober indvidls who exploited this disociaton bemcen worlds: explores, merchants, colons, traders, reformers, and aden turer. Lik ll hese other "new" men, authors depended on what was acy discovered inthe new lands as the basis for dei clr authority. The new Jands were che source of ews, and the ews facilitated socal mobility and cule ‘ural change. The recognition of what was new depended on an acktedg rent the inadequacy of allegory athe wource of uurl knowledge. Wheres ‘medieval allegory subsumed 3culkure’s persons and their ations-—no mart how various or qualified within ts unchanging typologies, what was pes a serted its dference from, rather than its correspondence with, these cre) ‘typologies. By inventing new words to describe things in the New Wor, 20- ‘thors ecard thee right to be represented on thir ov terms rather than im he words of the ancient books. And heir writings produced readers who also Jeamed how to define themes in their own tem rom the ficenth century trough te fst hal ofthe enced cnn, he texm “author” enjoyed 3 more of est constant ie in socal prestige. The bene fay ofthe esteem that cultures ad previously bestowed on thet aacore, the sathor and his work gfe a break rom the cultural eonseaint imposed by ‘eda Kings, Authors maintained thie affiscon with clara feedom through ‘the creation of akemativ works wherein individual human subjets could ex perience the autonomy denied them in their cull worl, ‘This seo caltual prominence ofthe author was coerelated fom the begin sing withthe aur fl. Like the astonomoss human sobjet, the author ws tn emergent political and culurl category, which was intially diferencia ‘om the culturally residual earegory ofthe auctor asa example of sl determi tition. Te author guaranteed the individ’ ably t determine his own idensty and actions out of his own experiences in a cucure he could efor rather than endorsing the auctor im of ranscending cule. "The aucor based his authority on divine revelation; the author derived is authority fom the dicovery of new worlds whose ative environments conta sed the auctor? mandstes. Te autores produced a cuir which reprodaced theie mandates; authors at Bist produced’ themselves out of the alternative work pictures hey used o explain and imaginatively inhabit other lands. Dring the years when feadal Europe was undergoing 2 fundamental eranfor ition, the author was never defined apart om this proces of transformation, (Once the work of clr trnsformtion was considered complete, however, the concept ofthe “author” underwent 2 fundamental change. Having helped fect the historic change from a feudal and predominantly agricultural society tad though a vaiety of other political and economic arrangements roa demo- ‘ci and predeminandly industrial Europe he author was no longer part of a8 ‘emergent cultural process. Following the realization ofan akerative calre he ‘nd earer only envisioned, the author's work underwent a related change — from a reciprocal workadsy relationship with other curl sci into the reaku of eni” which ranacended ordinary clr work. Tike the medical auc, the genius” enti the bass for his work with ‘the hws of the Creator. Consequently he realm of genius was define as tery sonoma, Free from determination by any cultural category other than the wohl reconstruction o his creative imagination, the genius broke down ‘he reproclelationsip beeen the author and theres of cukure ‘But wl the genius occupied eam tha transcended cake, he never Jess served a cultural function. AS an example ofthe peretion that could be achieved by aninhabtane ofthe clare, the genius sanctioned the political an: ‘hort ofthe culture in which he appeared. But, ike the medieval auc, he eine this authority sche aby co eranscend the ene clurl mie. Wheres the author developed within the culture he helped to develop, the _genis claimed tobe diferent from dhe ret of the cure. So defined, the work ‘of genius provided 2 polity useful contast to othe forms of labor in an industrial culture. In producing his eine workout of materials in is own imag nation, the genius pecfrmed “alarl” as oppose to industria” bor, Inds trial workers did not conto che means and product of thi abor but worked ‘with materials and produced commodities owed by someone elie. In correla ing nonalenate labor with his woek cater than withthe work ofan ordinary laborer, the genus provided at jusieaton for the cas dtnstions separa. ing those individuals wibo owned their labor from those who di not. I non lienated labor defined the category of genius, i became acuta pivilege, a benefit accrued in ee calurl real rther than inthe onary workaay week The ference berween the genius who creates other, “origina” worlds and the author who cooperates in the emergence ofan akemative eure undet- scores atleast two contradictory impulses the author shared from the beginning, with har other emergen cull eategry, the “sstonomous subject” Both the author and the individual colaborated with emergent collective processes in s0- ‘al life The autbor and che individual shared a tendency to become alienated fiom society once these collective social progeses Were filly miterilized, A though associated with the more inclusive social movement tha ed 1 revol ‘ion and civil war, the autho’ creative work was noe separable from the collet. tive work of these social movements Only afer an emancipatory social movement succeeded in establishing an alterative form of government with ts ‘own rues of law could an author’ creative efor be disointed from a vital collective leas the work of genius” As de authoritative source of the e- ave, the genius marked the rerum ofthe oe ofthe actor 0 the poste al euler word. To understand how she aucor returned, we need to rel how the auctor was fest overthrown. The actor had frmsly been supplanted when the Europeans, in confronting humans they belived 10 be of a nature other than their own, ‘recognize their own capacity tobe other. The buss fo succesful ansfons ‘ion ina Europeans naure was the discovery inthe New World of natal phe ‘nomena utterly inexplicable in terms ofthe auc. These tly alien phenom na produced an ‘other nature” satin the Renasance men who discovered ‘hem, ‘This “cher” within ultimately became the bai for dhe autonomous sujet Bur when it made its fs appearance, his “ther nate” was pinto sevice by the new men of commerce, Who were able to gray is appetes with the fox staf, spices, and goods brought ovr fom the New World. The qualities inchs ‘other nrure noc put o commercial use led toa diferent form of governmcatin ‘Burope. Using the New World 3 tacit backdrop for their arguments, pital ‘heoriss like Hobbes and Locke argued that man ia nature was ikea “sage” nthe New Worl Pepola, pooch, ped of protection asin 2. Neon eset ih he aro peste na Sa ih an ier Tak tcoes crea edo i war and evluons dhougiont Ba cop Bul oem wed on ein within European nia of ‘Ete rset was no ge sje so ther fetes fea onc SPIRE tna brn ed ofan serine Esropean pla stem fo is tenis pes of emergence thi new pal stem demanded a Cloris worgs ue diene rm he etre we uchine sen the wafomaton of the acre? models into alematve asf kere vrs ee in he spe fabs Sg 2S nated in the pos of bringing new pons adn Lvs nen bret power wee ale wh cole politic ag ‘Pog Spec rena ty pot ta dl no yet exit was chro IEA magintion tar th thor led the oer i the rx eke When te autor adc the colecive mapa capacity of PEE co make te wend hy wane ot fhe wo ey mee he rea elton ol wa STS dna ceded in sabiing erate forms of gover sop aor undertent an united ansormation- When the autor Tk mo lng be corel with an emanpory socal mover WuSEics nan ehuncipron fom he pla fe The em “pk” Belts sran of eel fom he pica realm. Ashe Wate of Beam Slt sewicacon, ailing the mcr’ create power with 3 EOUU fone wo cubis cyst the gen eneised acral ei rH carl fom eer the poll ote comm eans. He ele {hina sRepubicof Lens in hs ean the works of ena soe She Sahary peony creed by medial moran were ee > ‘Sop and cures ae ote tire cal Shih tl ofthe gens athe mur ing ve the Repl of ate auher’sfncion shied accordingly om tha of pring = eeEatpota worst of peodcing scr aterae tothe word SSP Ater we etal spe dang in workings fom tho SEREMS alerent wor of cand sonoma, thecal ea bsame ‘essing lect Dein he pot! and indus revlon ofthe cghrenth and in cel tid te earl ein cou noe be fal gis fom the SAE pola reams Bur inthe wench ey te ator eis SSPimoka eeaplai he ince of conomic nd pal sis 0 3 vot arity ctor ere The ges pute freedom fm material ‘tty uti hs seprtin of the cara om the conan em ‘loving th prt, he cons pic psychological and hor ‘conditions that provided dhe material envionment for an author's work were ened any determining relationship with it “This separation ofthe cultural fom the poll and economic realms peo- “duced an even more Fundamental division within the cull real, separating the author from his work. The cultural igure who supervised this division was rncther the genius, no the anor, but the rerary ert. Produced ou of this division of labor within the clara rel, the lterary critic supervised ure serentatio within the cleral realm and policed whe boundaies dist fing wha was literary fom what was no. “The division of cultural labor distinguishing the crit’ function for the av ‘hor’ replicated the division of industrial labor within the econcmie ral, ‘What senate the author from his works means of production, however, was ‘ot factory owner but the lterar critic who claimed a power o understand it greater than the authors own. The crite proved this power by interpreting the ‘work in sch away that the author seemed! an eect the citi inerpetaion ‘ther than the case of the work. Ina est eed “The Tnentonal Falla” (1954), Wimsatt and Beardsley, two American New Critics, ted the demotion of the author a function of the cise’ tea io a explicit pre of erica practice: “There a gross bay of life, of sensory and mental experienc, which les behind and in some snc ‘aus every poem, bu can never be and need nor be known inthe verbal and hence itleculcompesition which s the poem.” (See Wimsatt and Beardsley 1954, 12) Inelstnguising the crise’ text fom the autor’ work, the New Cries sucesflly displaced the auch’ “gens” asthe euler within the oul tural sphere Inthe process the New Cris produce a cura rtf, the “ogee” oe autonomous” ircrary ext that they defined at utterly sepa Som de suroundin environment. in separating the teary ta from the con two ofthe author, the New Crit only completed a movement shar had begun ‘in the cultural rain a cenury earlier, when the word "genins” separated the suuthors work fom the socioeconomic word [As the word “autoteic™ text implies, the New Cries positioned their newly ‘wom tet in areal apart from cvery imitation othe than the rales, conver tions and coastrains ofa purely textual les. In de same postwar period ‘which the New Crics constricted the division separating a teal mili from {social world, however, other ets leated 3 erie dimension within the a thors work. Instead of distinguishing the etic’ work fom the autho, those ttt using iri, Marist, Frankf school, and feminis ramewerks have restored the cra dimension to the authors wer, thereby linking the auchor and rte in a shared project. These rts retuned the author's work to the Social, economic, political, and gendered conteats which dhe New Critics p+ ‘ste of fom ther ars rexts, In restoring the historical context tothe thors works, thee eis have rescinded the New Crt’ lim that he miss ‘ests transcend historical contents. Their cia tums the ges back ino an individual subject, decermined by the social and economic frees whose shapes, the reece oF alered in his work In analyzing the complex relationship be tween the marke economy and what wae formery describe there creative pay" of genus, Marist cts in particular have restored the explicit relation: Ship between any authors work ad the antcipated ecepeioa for. Payehoans yi, phenomenological, and feminists have likewise restored cracls} shosail contents, In thereby turing the tanscendenr genius back into 3 ‘alway suated human subject, these crits have atempred to reverse some ofthe effets ofthe divisions of labor within the cular realm, Unlike dhe New (Citic? spproich, hse cits takes place a chat moment within an thors ‘work when the author becomes ercally aware of determinant social psycho Jogi, and political forces. "Thee cris have restored payshosocial elationships berween the author and

    You might also like