What is a writer?

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crucial document in the modern author's constitution: Statute of Anne

What is a writer? (French: Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur? ) is a text by the French philosopher Michel Foucault . The text goes back to Foucault's lecture of February 1969 to the Société française de philosophie . The first German translation appeared in 1974.

Foucault, whose work focuses on subject and author , gives in What is an author? his most detailed and most strictly worded opinion on the concept of author. The lecture is a replica of and further development of Roland Barthes ' thesis about the death of the author . Foucault also opposes the literary conception of an author as the subject who produces the text. For him, however, the concept of the author is still present: According to this, discourses determine an author function , which, however, has no direct reference to the text. Foucault's concern is to thematize the function of the author, to pursue its change through context and history.

What is a writer? is a central text of the postmodern debate about the concept of the author. Together with Barthes' work, Foucault's essay is one of the canonical texts in the ongoing discussion about author and subject in various cultural studies . Among other things, the essay triggered intensive research into the history of the individual, the romantic cult of genius and copyright law. The debate about the “ return of the author ” that has been going on since the late 1990s also addresses Foucault's text as one of the core texts.

expenditure

The French first edition of the lecture “What is an author?” Was published in 1969 in the Bulletin de la société française de philosophie , but without the subsequent discussion. Foucault repeated the lecture with slight changes in 1970 at the University of Buffalo in the USA. He later authorized printed versions of both lecture variants; the Paris version appeared in 1983 in the psychoanalysis journal littoral , the version from Buffalo in 1984 in The Foucault Reader (Ed. P. Rabinow, New York)

The first German translation by Karin von Hofer and Anneliese Botond was published in 1974 by Nymphenburger Verlag in the font collection: Michel Foucault: Schriften zur Literatur . Writings on literature found further distribution through a licensed edition of the Fischer Taschenbuch-Verlag in 1988. The Hofer / Borond translation contained there serves as the basis for numerous publications in other text collections, particularly effective in the collection of essays on the theory of authorship ( Fotis Jannidis (Ed.) 2000).

Today's authoritative edition of What Is an Author? appeared in 1994 in the French collection of Foucault's short writings, Dits et écrits, edited by Daniel Defert and François Ewald . It contains both the Paris lecture and the one from Buffalo, and the subsequent discussion in the Société française de philosophie. On this basis, a new translation was carried out by Hermann Kocyba for the German edition of the Dits et écrits (writings) . What is a writer? 2001 was part of the first volume of the German translation. The Kocyba translation, in turn, was reprinted in a Suhrkamp collection of various Foucault texts from 2003. The 2003 edition was titled Michel Foucault: Writings on Literature . The first English edition appeared in 1977 in the anthology Language, Counter-Memory, Practice , edited by Donald F. Bouchard and translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon at Cornell University Press ; it has also received several new editions and recordings in text collections in this language.

content

Foucault begins and ends his text with a quote Samuel Beckett from his stories and articles about Nothing : What does it matter who's speaking, someone said what matter who's speaking? or in the older German translation of the Foucault text: Who cares who speaks, did someone say who cares? .

In his preliminary remarks, Foucault deals intensively with Barthes' text The Death of the Author , whom he describes as arrested in the 19th century. Then he devotes himself to the author and puts forward his central thesis that the function of the author characterizes certain discourses in society. In the main part, Foucault outlines four characteristics of the author function. In the third part he turns to a special form of authors, the founders of discursiveness, namely Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud . Finally, in the short final part, he addresses broader topics: discourse analysis, the question of the privileges of the subject and the anonymity of the discourse that Foucault foresaw for the future.

Confrontation with Barthes

Foucault notes that criticism and philosophy have long been aware of the author's disappearance or death. In terms of content closely based on Barthes, but without naming him directly, Foucault criticizes attempts to replace the "disappeared author" with the writer, as well as the adoption of the term work . Ultimately, these are only synonymous terms for the author, as they still show numerous characteristics of the author. Their uncritical use positions the scribe, in this context above all the unnamed Barthes, in the 19th century. The actual disappearance of the author is still utopian . The author is still necessary in certain discourses .

While Barthes essentially bases his argument on a historical sketch of writing and authorship, Foucault begins by announcing that he does not want to write a historical analysis of the author. But underground, Foucault writes a counter-story to Barthes. The latter claims that a number of literary figures from Stéphane Mallarmé to the Surrealists have failed to throw off the tyranny of the author and it took linguistics to do so. Foucault, on the other hand, suggests that literature itself caused the author to disappear.

In our culture , the work has undergone a metamorphosis. The work that had the task of making immortal received the right to kill, to kill its author. Think of Flaubert, Proust, Kafka. With the fact that Foucault defines both Flaubert (1821–1880) and Samuel Beckett (1906–1989) as part of “our culture”, he opposes Barthes' historical idea of ​​progress. Mallarmé, who plays a central role in Barthes 'text as a failed precursor of current developments, only appears in Foucault's summary of his introduction: the disappearance of the author, which has happened incessantly since Mallarmé. Mallarmé, Barthes' failed precursor, becomes for Foucault to the triumphant contemporary.

With this criticism of Barthes, Foucault also repositions himself in his role of literary theorist: While for Barthes it was the role of science and criticism to kill the author, Foucault envisages a much more modest role for criticism. Since the literature itself has already made the author disappear, it is the task of the critic to appreciate the importance of the moment and to trace the consequences of it.

Author function

Foucault examines the role that the author assumes in these discourses. This function is historically contingent , discursive and institutionally bound . For Foucault, it is not the individual, named voice of the subject that determines the function of the author, but rather “the murmur of discourse”. The author is a rationalist construct from which literary studies can read the deeper meaning and psychological content of a text.

The author's function changes depending on the context and over the course of the story. Foucault does not understand his argumentation as historical argumentation, but merely as a transhistorical illustration, which is also supplemented by contemporary examples of different ways in which the author function is used. Foucault assumes that this individual assignment of a text is a comparatively new movement. For a long time the reference to the author was not necessary to legitimize a text. In the areas that were classified as literary texts in the 20th century, their anonymity was not a problem in the premodern era, but their real or ascribed age vouched for their authority. It was different with those texts that, according to modern opinion, fall into the field of science: texts about cosmology or medicine, natural sciences or geography would only have a truth value if they were legitimized by one of the legitimized author names ( Hippocrates , Pliny , Aristotle ) were.

Foucault puts the time of upheaval in the 17th and especially the 18th century. While the author's role in the natural sciences had lost its importance during this time, it had been introduced in the other areas and gained power. He uses the concept of discourse and states that there are discourses that can get by with the author function and others in which this is not necessary. In modern literature, this reference to the author function arises together with the literary market. The function of author is tied to a legal and state system. A number of specific and complicated operations are required to define the function. In contrast to saints and mystical persons for example, discourses got real authors to the extent that the author could be punished. Later on, the legal codification of the author's status was primarily a matter of acquiring ownership of a text through the possibility of the newly created copyright law : and as a property system for texts, when strict laws were passed on copyrights, on relationships between authors and publishers, on reproduction rights, etc. - That is, at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century - at that moment the possibility of transgression inherent in the act of writing assumed more and more the character of a commandment inherent in literature.

In the central section of his lecture, Foucault deals with the creation of the author function. This is by no means spontaneous, but rather the result of a complex operation. In doing so, those parts of an individual would be designated as the author , the projection of how we treated a text. The author function does not belong to a specific individual person, but is the result of an interpretation. A person belongs to a completely different category than the interpretative function author of the same name. The assumed relationship of identity between person and function is by no means seamless. For example, one person could be interpreted as several authors - such as Locke , the political philosopher, and Locke, the epistemological scientist, and where a person is mortal, an author can live up to the present and influence it.

Where in Barthes' the text creates the author, Foucault loosens this connection. The author is first placed on a text as an interpretive framework. At the same time, the assignment of an author to a text gives it meaning and points beyond everyday life. Only the connection of a text with an author makes it stand out from the crowd of ordinary texts. The association with an author's name gives the text a special meaning; it is stored, received and discussed in libraries.

Foucault deals in more detail with the role of literary studies. The determination of an author takes place by excluding certain qualitatively poor texts from a work; it forms a field of certain conceptual and theoretical coherence, is defined as a stylistic unit and stands for a certain historical moment and an intersection of events. In the literature eventually started a category will to analyze a work. He serves as a source to give the text meaning. The author's function is used to put a supposed unity over a work, for example by pulling the unifying figure of the author over contradictions in different texts.

A characteristic of the author's function is that it creates a plurality of egos and creates a break in the work. Texts contained in themselves references to the author, for example through time and place or certain adverbs. While this can easily be seen as a reference to the real speaker in texts without an author function, it leads to a break in author-carrying texts. The speaker ego differs more or less strongly from the author ego. It is precisely in this break that the author function materializes.

Foucault sums up the four characteristics of the author function named by him as follows: "The author function is tied to the legal and state system, which includes, determines and expresses the entirety of the discourses; it does not have a uniform and uniform effect on all discourses at all times and in all forms of culture; it cannot be defined by spontaneously ascribing a discourse to a producer, but rather a series of specific and complicated operations are necessary; it does not simply refer to a real individual, it can simultaneously contain several egos in several subjects. To give space to positions that can be occupied by different groups of individuals. "

Founder of discursivity

In the third part of his text, Foucault turns to a special form of the author-subject, what he calls the founders of discursiveness, with a particular focus on Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx . These authors not only - like novelists - created their own text, but also the possibility and educational laws, for Foucault the "rules of formation" of other texts. From his point of view, they have given space for something other than themselves, which however belongs to what they have justified.

This would put these authors in line with the founders of science such as Newton or Galileo. In contrast to this, however, the discourse always returns to the founders of the discursive nature. While the texts of the founders of science lose their legitimacy in their historical appropriation , things turn out differently in the case of the founders of discursivity: There, the appropriating texts that follow gain their own legitimacy through reference to the sources. The justification of discursiveness stands outside of the later transformation of science, i.e. not within its space, but rather science relates to the work of the founders as to original coordinates. While a text by Newton found today would no longer have any effects on modern physics, new texts by Freud or Marx would require a re-evaluation of modern theory as well.

Discourse analysis

Foucault ends his text zweigestalt analytically on the one hand, and polemically on the other, expanding the polemical part in his later speech in Buffalo. There he states: I seem to be calling for a form of culture in which fiction is not shortened by the figure of the author. However, it would be pure romanticism to imagine a culture in which fiction circulated absolutely freely, at everyone's disposal, without assigning oneself to a necessary or compelling figure.

Analytically, Foucault sees - unlike Barthes, for example, who completely rejects the term author - the term author as a starting point for exploring the historical variations of the author function in further works. The category of the author function could perhaps lead to typologizing and describing different discourses according to their relationship to the author function.

Foucault does not want to say goodbye to the author for good, and does not consider this to be possible, but rather a more precise historical analysis of the author's function. Foucault regards the author function as an essential characteristic of discourse. His interest lies in determining the characteristics of both authoritative and authorless discourses. He sees authorless discourses that produce authorless texts, for example, in graffiti , contracts or private letters. At the end of What is an Author? Foucault imagines a society in which the author function has disappeared.

Position in the factory

Foucault's work is fragmentary and unfinished right from the start. In Isaiah Berlin's picture of the fox and the hedgehog , he clearly takes the place of the fox like hardly any other author, who does not know much about one thing, but something of a great many things. Each of his larger texts serves to explore a special complex of problems and not to build a larger theoretical structure. Nevertheless, certain figures of thought and methodological explorations can be traced through several works. Especially in What is an Author? he seems to point out that he does not want to be seen as an author in a comprehensive sense, but rather his texts as platforms from which creative discourses can be constructed. In response to imaginary criticism, which demands stronger stipulations from him, he replies in what is at the same time what is an author? incurred Archeology of Knowledge : Do not ask me who I am, and not prompt me, the same remain: leave it to the bureaucrats and to check our papers the police. At least their morals save us when we write.

Of the numerous texts in which Foucault deals with the role of the author, what is an author? the most detailed and concentrated variant. While he repeatedly deals with the role of the subject and the author function in later works, he does not take up the concept of the founder of discursivity.

In his earlier work, Foucault had deviated from the importance of the author as the creator of a text; the author does put the language on paper, but is not its spokesman. Nevertheless, each text would be assigned an author's name and breaking this connection is utopian. In What is an Author? he now turns to the question of what the function of this connection is.

What is a writer? is related to Foucault's other two works on the history of science. In the previous work, Order of Things (1966), he traces a history of knowledge . In the 1969 archeology of knowledge , which was published at the time of the lecture of What is an Author? was about to be published, he formulated a method book on the history of knowledge. The three publications are among the few attempts by Foucault to develop a consistent theory and methodology across several works; in all three texts he deals with the basics of discourse analysis .

The lecture is Foucault's first public statement after the events of May 1968 . In the text he begins a reformulation of his work, so that it is also at the transition between his two work phases. The Foucault before the author deals primarily with the archeology of discourse and the disciplining effect of discourse on thinking. After 1970, Foucault's texts deal primarily with the relationship between power , discipline and the body, developing the concepts of governmentality and biopower .

The order of things

Marked in Foucault's lifelong preoccupation with the subject What is an Author? a transition between the non-existence of man, which he had represented in the order of things , and his later reflections on the genealogy of the subject. In the Order of Things he had attempted to write a history of ideas in which the importance of individual thinkers in relation to impersonal forces is reduced to a minimum. There Foucault had formulated that the human being is a relatively modern invention of discourse, and thus opened up the possibility of formulating subjectivities beyond the concept of humanity.

The order of things triggered an extensive echo, which also included numerous criticisms. In the preface to the later English edition, Foucault partially agreed with the criticism and isolated three problems to which the order of things could only offer inadequate answers: change, causality and the position of the author. In his foreword to What is an Author? again, he speaks of the opportunity to return to certain areas of his previous work that, in retrospect, led astray.

The masked philosopher

Foucault takes up the author's subject again eleven years later in an interview with Le Monde . In this conversation with the journalist Christian Delacampagne he appeared anonymously as a “masked philosopher” in order to exemplify his utopia of an authorless discourse. He accused literary studies of making it too easy for itself with the term author. As an alternative, he suggested publishing only books without an author's name for a year, thereby challenging the criticism to a new form of discourse. However, this is impossible because the author function is too strong; the authors would simply wait a year before their books were published. Foucault's hope of being able to contribute to the authorless discourse through the mask was also disappointed, as the interview could only be assigned to his person a little later.

References to other authors

Since 18./19. In the 19th century, the author was a dominant figure in literary interpretation. The author's intention was accepted as the definitive interpretation of a text, biographism played an important role, and literary studies devoted a great deal of energy to finding the real - i. H. to find the version of a text preferred by the author in order to grasp its actual meaning.

A direct line of tradition, to which Foucault refers, comes from the Russian formalism and develops through structuralism to the work of the French post-structuralists. Foucault was clearly influenced in his thoughts on the work and the author by his intensive examination of phenomenology . Other writers who were critical of the traditional role of the author in the early 20th century were Martin Heidegger and Walter Benjamin .

From the 1950s / 1960s onwards, sociological approaches began to gain a foothold in literary studies , which saw the author less as an individual genius than as a self-employed person. The works - often influenced by Marxism - concentrated on the economic, social and legal environment of text production. Independently - but at the same time - New Criticism directed its gaze exclusively to the text, without including environmental conditions or the author in its considerations. Intentionalism was considered heresy by New Criticism, and its proponents vehemently defended themselves against the intentional fallacy . While the importance of the author in literary studies was already waning in the decades before Foucault's lecture, Barthes and Jacques Derrida launched a frontal attack by declaring the author's death and placing the meaning of a text in the hands of the reader alone.

Immediately before Foucault's speech is Barthes' essay The Death of the Author from 1967, published in 1968. In this, the author traces the history of writing. The tyrannical figure of the author has only developed in it in modern times . Only in the last phase, that is at the time of Barthes' text, did the story develop further, the writing "came to itself". While numerous writers have already tried to break away from the author figure, it was only modern linguistics that succeeded in repositioning the text within the language. Language precedes the writer and would limit his possibilities, while the meaning of a text is determined by the reader. For Barthes, the death of the author is a prerequisite for the birth of the reader. Even if Foucault does not explicitly mention Barthes' text on the author's death , his lecture is a replica of it. Far from returning the author to the position of genius with sole textual sovereignty, his approach, compared to Barthes or Derrida, is, however, a partial revival of the author.

reception

What is a writer? is widely received, discussed and "cited endlessly" to this day. It is part of the canon of the discussion about authorship and, in conjunction with other texts on the subject, has brought about a partial reorientation of literary studies. Quotes and slogans from the text can even be found in essay titles on a wide range of topics ranging from the identity of the Aborigines to the differences between the literature of East and West German women. At the same time, like all of Foucault's works, he is considered impenetrable, confusing and his reputation is often based more on the authority of the name Foucault than on his substantive merits.

Immediate reactions

The first reactions followed immediately after Foucault's lecture at the Société française de philosophie. The undogmatic Marxist Lucien Goldmann responded to Foucault, referring to Georg Lukács and Jean-Paul Sartre . He described Foucault as a structuralist who can only think of the subject beyond the individual, and answered him with a well-known slogan from May 1968: “Structures do not go down on the street.” Although human action has structured forms, it is never the structure that makes history, but the people. Foucault, however, immediately denied having ever used the word "structure", and he never claimed that the author did not exist. On further accusations from Goldmann in the discussion he replied: “I did not analyze the subject or the author. If I had given a lecture on the subject, I would probably have analyzed the subject function in the same way, that is, made an analysis of the conditions which enable an individual to fulfill the function of a subject. ... There is no absolute subject. "

Literary studies

Immediately after its publication, the text caused a scandal when the author passed it and helped shape the image of Foucault as an antihumanist . Literary studies and philosophy found numerous points on which Foucault's text was criticized. In a text about the author's disappearance, he assigned individual named authors (Beckett, Mallarmé) central places. Foucault's text itself remains ambiguous as to whether it is now calling for the author to disappear, believing it to be unreachable, or merely establishing it in retrospect. The central concept of the author function is neither defined nor does Foucault make it entirely clear whether he is talking about an author function or several different ones. While Foucault, on the one hand, establishes the fundamental role of discourse, he undermines this role by defining the founders of discursiveness.

In further literary studies, Foucault's lecture and Barthes' text were the main testimony to the thesis of the author's death . Although this representation was significantly shortened and distorted compared to Foucault's text, it was nevertheless powerful. In connection with the order of things there is a powerful chain of associations leading to the death of the subject , whereby the Foucault text usually loses its own contours in these associations.

The beginning with the indifferent Beckett quote and the end of the text have contributed to this classification. While Foucault developed a differentiated view of the author's function in his main argument, the beginning and end of the text appear much more clear and led to Foucault being placed in the row of the death-of-the-author protagonists. At the same time, Foucault's reply prompted Barthes to systematize his criticism of the author and, in a publication from 1973, Die Lust am Text , to place the text at the center of his work.

Methodologically, Foucault's approach to discourse theory in particular proved to be influential, which is described in What is an author? addressed, but is further elaborated especially in the archeology of knowledge . In literary theory, Foucault's text opened up a space for further theorists who built on his assumptions: Alexander Nehamas conceptualized the “postulated”, Gregory Currie the “fictional” and Jorge Gracia the “interpretative author”. The work of Fotis Jannidis was particularly influential in the German-speaking discussion . Jannidis takes up older historicizing author theories and "confirms them post-structuralistically" with the help of arguments from Foucault. He regards Foucault's conclusions as completely refuted, and his utopia of an authorless discourse as a failure. Nevertheless, he largely adopts Foucault's methodology.

In other departments

At the same time, Foucault removed the author debate from the field of literature and placed it in the broader context of the entire text production of texts other than literary. What is a writer? triggered extensive studies that dealt with the exact conditions of existence and developments of the author function. Martha Woodmansee , Mark Rose and Carla Hesse were particularly influential in this regard , researching in detailed studies how the author function was established in France, England and Germany in the 18th century, and who examined both aesthetic and political-legal developments. Building on Foucault's text, they examined copyright law , censorship , the evolving literary market, and aesthetic developments within Romanticism in order to paint a much more nuanced picture of development.

Much of the North American research on the author in the 1990s was based on her work, and in particular from the 1991 symposium at Case Western Reserve University , organized with Peter Jaszi , Intellectual Property and the Construction of Authorship . Influential work in this regard, for example, were Jane Gaines ' texts on authorship in film or James Boyles and Rosemary Coombes analyzes of current developments in copyright law. Jaszi already pointed out in the early 1990s that authorship was becoming increasingly collective and collaborative. Based on these texts, Jessica Litman derived the strengthening of the reader, which in the creative act equals that of the author.

While Foucault emphasized not to write pure history and not to establish a linear course of author development, many of his successors assume that it was the invention of copyright law that created individual authors in the first place, a widespread thesis that can easily be refuted empirically. The impulse that led to the return of the author developed from this research.

The New Historicism builds its basic assumptions on what is an author? because he tries - contrary to New Criticism - to embed texts in their discourses and thus to develop their meaning.

Internet and author function

A new debate about the disappearance of the author and the role of the author function, on the other hand, opened up with the Internet , where, especially in the 1990s, many interpreters believed that the author would finally disappear. Tom G. Palmer speculated as early as 1989 in Intellectual Property A: Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach that technical developments could make modern authors disappear, while David Lange in 1992 in At Play in the Fields of the Word: Copyright and the Construction of Authorship in the Post-Literate Millennium saw the emergence of Foucault's romanticized culture due to the emerging technologies since the photocopier, in which fiction is no longer restricted by the author. In German literary research, Uwe Wirth put forward the thesis that the disappearance of the author by no means brought out the reader, but the editor.

In a text about the author's disappearance in copyright, New York legal scholar Jane C. Ginsburg complains about the interaction between the shocks that Foucault's text caused in the copyright debate and the increasing " Wikipediafication of content" by the Internet.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Martin Stingelin: Preliminary remark to What is an author? in Martin Stingelin (Ed.): Michel Foucault: Schriften zur Literatur Suhrkamp 2003 p. 234 ISBN 3-518-29275-7
  2. ↑ a b Hartling S. 116-117
  3. ^ Molly Nesbit: What Was an Author? , in: Yale French Studies, No. 73, Everyday Life (1987), pp. 229-257, p. 229
  4. ↑ a b Wilson p. 339
  5. ↑ a b c d Sean Burke: The death and return of the author: criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida Edinburgh University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-7486-1006-5 p. 90
  6. ↑ a b Hartling p. 115
  7. ^ Wilson p. 347
  8. ↑ a b Wilson p. 342
  9. ↑ a b c Hartling p. 111
  10. ^ Wilson p. 344
  11. ↑ a b Michel Foucault: What is an author? , Frankfurt, Suhrkamp 2003 p. 239
  12. ↑ Michel Foucault: What is an author? , Frankfurt, Suhrkamp 2003 p. 242
  13. ^ Wilson p. 345
  14. ^ Wilson p. 346
  15. ↑ Hartling, p. 110
  16. ↑ a b Rouff p. 79
  17. ↑ a b c Petra Gehring: Foucault - the philosophy in the archive , Campus Verlag, 2004 ISBN 3-593-37393-9 p. 29
  18. ^ Wilson p. 349
  19. ↑ Briehler p. 274
  20. ↑ a b c Briehler p. 275
  21. ↑ Harvey Hix: Morte D'Author: An Autopsy in: The Iowa Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Winter 1987), pp. 131-150, p. 132
  22. ↑ Michel Foucault: What is an author? , Frankfurt, Suhrkamp 2003 p. 246
  23. ↑ a b Wilson p. 350
  24. ↑ a b Petra Gehring: Foucault-- the philosophy in the archive , Campus Verlag, 2004 ISBN 3-593-37393-9 p. 28
  25. ↑ a b Wilson p. 351
  26. ↑ a b Rouff p. 78
  27. ↑ a b Hartling p. 113
  28. ^ Wilson p. 352
  29. ↑ Hartling p. 114
  30. ↑ Michel Foucault: Was ist ein Autor ?, Stuttgart, Reclam 2000, p. 217 f.
  31. ↑ a b Briehler p. 276
  32. ↑ Michel Foucault: Was ist ein Autor ?, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp 2003 p. 260
  33. ^ Gary Gutting : Michel Foucault: A User's Manual in: Gary Gutting (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Michel Foucault Cambridge University Press 2nd ed. 2003 ISBN 978-0-521-60053-8 p. 2
  34. ↑ Bradley J. Macdonald: Marx, Foucault, Genealogy Polity, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2002), pp. 259-284, p. 264
  35. ↑ Briehler p. 277
  36. ↑ a b Roland Anhorn, Frank Bettinger, Johannes Stehr: Foucaults power analysis and social work: A critical introduction and inventory VS Verlag, 2007 ISBN 3-531-15020-0
  37. ↑ Reiner Keller: Knowledge-sociological discourse analysis: Foundation of a research program VS Verlag, 2010 ISBN 3-531-17837-7 p. 123
  38. ↑ Briehler p. 273
  39. ↑ Catherine Chaput: Regimes of truth, disciplined bodies, secured populations An overview of Michel Foucault in: Science Fiction Film and Television, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2009, pp. 91-104, p. 92
  40. ↑ Sean Burke: The death and return of the author: criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida Edinburgh University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-7486-1006-5 p. 62
  41. ↑ Catherine Chaput: Regimes of truth, disciplined bodies, secured populations An overview of Michel Foucault in: Science Fiction Film and Television, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2009, pp. 91-104, p. 95
  42. ↑ Hartling p. 112
  43. ↑ Christine Haynes: Reassessing “Genius” in Studies of Authorship. The State of the Discipline. In: Book History , Volume 8, 2005, pp. 287-320, p. 289.
  44. ↑ Sean Burke: The death and return of the author: criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida Edinburgh University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-7486-1006-5 p. 10
  45. ↑ a b Ibrahim Muhawi : The “Arabian Nights” and the Question of Authorship in: Journal of Arabic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 3, The Thousand and One Nights (2005), pp. 323-337, p. 332
  46. ↑ a b c d e f Christine Haynes: Reassessing “Genius” in Studies of Authorship. The State of the Discipline in: Book History, Volume 8, 2005, pp. 287-320, p. 291
  47. ↑ Wilson p. 340
  48. ^ Rainer Zeiser: Michel Foucault and the consequences for literary studies in: Rainer Zeiser (ed.): Literary theory and “sciences Humaines”: France's contribution to the methodology of literary studies Frank & Timme, 2008 ISBN 3-86596-164-9 p. 203
  49. ↑ Hartling, p. 119
  50. ^ Diane Parkin-Speer: Review: The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature by Martha Woodmansee ; Peter Jaszi in: Law and History Review Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 187-189
  51. ↑ Briehler p. 278
  52. ↑ Hartling p. 76
  53. ^ Martin Saar: Genealogy as Critique: History and Theory of the Subject according to Nietzsche and Foucault Campus Verlag, 2007 ISBN 3-593-38191-5 p. 181
  54. ↑ a b c Wilson p. 343
  55. ^ Rainer Zeiser: Michel Foucault and the consequences for literary studies in: Rainer Zeiser (ed.): Literary theory and “sciences Humaines”: France's contribution to the methodology of literary studies Frank & Timme, 2008 ISBN 3-86596-164-9 p. 216
  56. ↑ Hartling p. 124
  57. ^ John Logie: Review: The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law by Rosemary J. Coombe. / Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators by Rebecca Moore Howard. in: Rhetoric Society Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter, 2001), pp. 102-105
  58. ↑ Thomas Streeter: The Net Effect: Romanticism, Capitalism, and the Internet NYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-4116-9 pp. 145-146
  59. ↑ a b Jane C. Ginsburg, Jane C .: The Author's Place in the Future of Copyright in: 45 Willamette L. Rev. 2008-2009 p. 386
  60. ↑ Siva Vaidhyanathan: Copyrights and Copywrongs : the rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity NYU Press, 2003 ISBN 0-8147-8807-6 p. 193
  61. ↑ a b Hartling p. 25
  62. ↑ David Lange At Play in the Fields of the Word: Copyright and the Construction of Authorship in the Post-Literate Millennium in: Law and Contemporary Problems Vol. 55, No. 2, Copyright and Legislation: The Kastenmeier Years (Spring, 1992), pp. 139-151, p. 145

literature

expenditure

  • "Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur?" in: Bulletin de la société française de philosophie, Ed. Armand Collin, February 22, 1969, pp. 75-104.
  • Michel Foucault: What is an author? In: Ders .: Writings on literature. Frankfurt / M. 1988. pp. 7-31.
  • Foucault, Michel: “What is an author?”. In: Jannidis, Fotis u. a. (Ed.): Texts on the theory of authorship. Reclam, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 198-229.

Secondary literature

  • Ulrich Briehler: The relentlessness of historicity: Foucault as a historian . Böhlau, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 1998, ISBN 3-412-10697-6 , pp. 273-279 (Contributions to the culture of history, volume 14).
  • Florian Hartling: The digital author: authorship in the age of the internet . transcript Verlag, 2009, ISBN 3-8376-1090-X .
  • Michael Ruoff: Author . In: Foucault Lexicon: Development, key terms, relationships . 2nd Edition. UTB, 2007, ISBN 3-8252-2896-7 , pp. 78-79.
  • Adrian Wilson: Foucault on the “Question of the Author”: A Critical Exegesis . In: The Modern Language Review , Vol. 99, No. 2, April 2004, pp. 339-363.