Hello, everyone welcome to today's session
of the NPTEL course Postmodernism in Literature.
In last couple of sessions we had been looking
at the essay the death of the author and we
saw how this essay is seen as one of the seminal
essays which inaugurated the the idea of challenging
the author and also, how it becomes important
in our understanding of post structuralist
as well as post modernist frame works of understanding
literature culture and also the reading of
texts in general.
In Barthes essay the death of the author;
we also saw how by relegating the author to
the background by completely removing the
author, by pronouncing the death of the author,
the interpretation, the text ownership was
given to the reader.
Text became really interpretations in the
hands of ah readers totally devoid of any
authorial intervention, totally devoid of
any single meaning given to the text by the
author; and we also realized towards the end
of the essay that the essay death of the author
cannot be written an isolation, but it needs
to be understood in connection with an essay
that followed the one by Michel Foucault entitled
what is an author.
And this essay, what is an author by Michel
Foucault; it also echoes a number of thoughts
already articulated by Barthes it is also
a continuation of a certain intellectual tradition
which has been challenging the authority of
the author.
And this essay was written delivered as a
lecture on 22nd February 1969 and now number
of translations and a number of interpretations
of the text is available now.
Foucault himself had also published revised
version of the lecture in French.
And Michel Foucault was a theorist who lived
from 1926 to 1984 in the words of Pramod Nayar;
one of the commentaries of literary criticism
he acknowledges that acknowledges that Foucault
was the person engaged with the rise of the
forms of knowledge the classificatory mechanisms
of knowledge and the rules by which knowledge
was collected, archived and disseminated.
Here, we can see that Foucault's primary concerns
was with the aspects of knowledge.
And, this he achieves by engaging with some
with something that he identifies as discourses
and discursive practices and without going
into the details of this which we shall do
in one of the later sessions .
It is also important to remember that Foucault
like Barthes was not a literary theorist.
In fact, he could be considered as a theorist
of history and also as a poststructuralist
thinker and when we try to talk about Foucault
it is again difficult to delimit him to a
particular school of thought, because Foucault
himself became the inaugural figure of ah
a school of thought or by himself and nevertheless
it is a important to note that he draws a
number of ideas assumptions and methods from
a range of thinkers and a range of schools
of thought say from Freud Marxism, structuralism,
phenomenology, philosophy, sociology, literature
and history.
So, it is very difficult to very difficult
to only identify Foucault as a poststructuralist
thinker, but we would also eventually highlight
that the ideas of Foucault; the ways in which
he revolutionized the systems of knowledge
and systems of thought it also became an underlying
principle and understanding postmodernism
itself.
In last few sessions we had been focusing
on the poststructuralism moment and also been
trying to also been trying to highlight the
connection between the poststructuralism and
the fundamental ideas of postmodernism.
Here, it is also very important to keep in
mind the fact that much of postmodernism can
be understood only if we begin with the poststructuralist
moment only if we try to map, how post structuralism
had been shaping up after structuralism and
also how a range of theorist range of researchers
associated with post structuralism also had
become quiet seminan in laying the foundations
of postmodern thinking.
So, many of the many of the thinkers many
of the theorist who feature in the poststructuralist
map also become quite significant theorist
of the postmodern also have become significant
theorist of the post modernism.
So, without going into the details of any
particular figure now; let me try and give
you a brief sense of what in details to move
away from structuralism to towards poststructuralism,
which in turn had also become seminal in our
understanding of postmodernism.
So, structuralism is inherently a search for
the underlying scientific objective structure
of a phenomenon.
For example, Levi-Strauss an anthropology
and Saussure in linguistics have try to locate
the structures which are important in understanding;
the the features of language the connection
between the signified and the un signified.
So, all of those things and the departure
from those fundamental structures had let
to the emergence of poststructuralist thinking.
And poststructuralism on the other hand has
no fixed structures 'behind' cultural phenomena,
and this is exemplified in the works of Foucault,
Deleuze and Derridal; as we would see and
this also could be considered as major theoretical
school in the postmodern age; though technically
we can say the poststructuralism is in stuck
conflict with Marxism, feminism and postcolonialism,
but it would also be difficult to understand
poststructuralism totally in isolation with
these leading phenomena, because they also
the understanding poststructuralism also combine
with these aspects with which it in some ways
is in conflict with as well.
And the range of influence of poststructuralism
could be from anything from arts and politics
throughout the popular culture that we see
in and around as in the contemporary.
And when we try to understand structuralism
and poststructuralism within the sphere of
a text within the sphere of literary criticism
it is also important to see what the structuralists
and the poststructuralist seek to locate in
a text.
So, to provide a very minimal understanding
of the differences between structuralists
mode of a critical approach and the poststructuralist
mode of critical approach.
Let us quickly take a look at some of the
things that structuralists look for and some
of the things the post structuralism in the
contrary look form.
Structuralist basically argue for a kind of
textual unity.
So, in mo most of their approaches; we can
find a method or methodology which eventually
leads to the location of textual unity and
balance; this includes a range of things such
as parallels and echoes or balances in a text
the the location of reflections and repetitions
and the and the identification of symmetry,
of contrasts, patterns, basically they look
for structure which would help them beset
the text understand the text in particular
ways.
On the other hand poststructuralism celebrates
textual disunity.
So, in that process they will be looking for
contradictions and paradoxes, which rather
than becoming inconveniences become a starting
point for undertaking a poststructuralist
approach.
They also look for shifts and breaks, in tone,
viewpoint, tense, time person and attitude
the they are also seeking conflicts absences
and omissions for linguistic quirks for aporia
in order to find the sense of meaning; more
importantly the poststructuralist approaches
more culture specific and they also give a
greater attention to contextualisation.
And there is also a very deliberate highlighting
of the role of language and textuality.
So, in order to be able to understand; how
practically this is done?
How poststructuralist; how poststructuralist
are unable to identify these particular inconveniences
within the space of a text; it is also important
to take a look at in other term deconstruction.
And this was a term put forward by Jacques
Derrida and his theory concerns structures,
but nevertheless it was an anti structuralists
ah gesture.
So, there is an inherent paradox in the ways
the construction is defined .
Nevertheless, it is also important to remember
that poststructuralism and deconstruction
are perhaps interchangeable terms, when I
say this I also mean that there is a perhaps
when we try to approach a text through the
poststructuralist method when we try to analyse
the text through the poststructuralist methodology.
We are eventually trying to do a deconstruction
of the text and this term deconstruction came
into being after Derrida started using it
for a specific kind of a approach towards
particular text, because he was also unhappy
being label as a poststructuralist, because
he also believe that he engage primarily with
structures though his arguments was a structures
were to be undone decomposed and desedimented.
So, here we also find certain sorts of ideas,
which are which also are part of the postmodernist
tendencies where the structures are not something
to be believed in, but the structures are
something to be something to be used in order
to move away from them in order to move towards
a more inconvenient reading, which would also
open up the text for alternate possibilities
for alternate meaning making processes.
So, how do the poststructuralist; employ the
methods of deconstruction while they access
a text.
So, in order to answer this question how this
entire process is being done within the space
of a text we would begin by looking at a term
a phrase used by Terry Eagleton where he says
it is important to read the text against the
text itself.
Eagleton's phrase also became immensely popular
in talking about the constructive methods
and he also argue that the idea of the construction
or the idea of the poststructuralist approach
is to expose the textual subconscious.
In other in other words this is this becomes
important because the text cannot know itself.
So, we make an attempt to know the text; by
re-reading or unpacking the subconscious or
what is not presented in a word form.
And secondly, there is a; there is an attempt
being made to fix upon the surface features
of the words and to bring them to the foreground
by focusing on language by focusing on structure
by, but by reading against them.
So, this also a kind of practice, which has
now come to be known as reading against the
grain and this process also exposes the text
disunity; which eventually becomes all the
more useful all the more fruitful in applying
the deconstructive methods.
And here we also find the practically the
literary critics would be concentrating on
a single passage intensibilty; intensively
to create an unequivocal meaning and they
also look for fault lines shifts and breaks
in the text and also for a number of evidences
for the covert in the text.
So, basically this also leads to a kind of
close reading.
So, poststructuralism deconstruction when
it is a employed within the space of a literary
text it also employs the techniques of close
reading, which we shall be taking a closer
look at in one of the later sessions; when
we when we closely engage with particular
literary text as part of our discussions on
post modernism.
This understanding of the shift from structuralism
towards a poststructuralist method and also
towards the deconstructive methods of understanding
a text also becomes important in locating
our understanding of postmodernism in literature.
Coming back to the discussion of Foucault's;
what is an author it is important to remember
that the the both the essays by Barthes and
Foucault's death of the author and what is
an author both are concerned with authorship
and there is hardly any debate about the primary
theme of both of these essays, but the, but
they also are different in particular ways;
when Barthes pronounces actively pronounces
the author dead Foucault questions the role
of the author and questions, why? the authors
figure is required within the space of a text
and eventually proves him irrelevant.
So, both of them eventually arguing pretty
much the same thing the the death of the author
or as Foucault uses the disappearance of the
author from literature from the space of a
text, but the method through which they do
this is systematic in two different ways,
they both arrive at the same end through different
routes through different kinds of arguments.
And compare to Barthes essay, which is very
short Foucault's is a fairly long essay and
there are number of translations available
as well.
So, for this course we shall be looking at
1998 translation by Robert Hurley and others.
There are number of translations made available
of Foucault's texts from French to English;
and this one is particularly readable and
particularly given in a very simple language.
So, for this course our references will be
mostly from this particular edition of translation.
In the essay what is an author Foucault's
concerns is not with authors and their works,
but he is more interested in the concept of
work and the functional role of an author
which he designated as the author function
that also forms the cracks of this essay;
and he also like, Barthes focuses on this
shift in the traditional notion of individualisation
of author which also becomes a basic premise
for the understanding of both of these essays.
And, Foucault's essay examines the concept
of the author inside out he does; if we may
say an unpacking of the idea of the author
the function of the author and this this this
unpacking is done against structuralism against
the traditional formal reading of a literary
work and he is totally oppose to the concept
of expression which was dominant in the romantic
which was dominant during the romantic period.
He also uses an oft quoted expression from
Samuel Beckett a modernist playwright what
matter who is speaking and then uses this
is an entry point to talk about the various
aspects of author and the authors function.
When the essay begins Foucault gives us a
very brief overview of the coming into being
of the notion of the author, but also tells
us that his intention is not to offer a sociohistorical
analysis of the authors persona and then he
moves on to highlight moves on to state; the
primary objective of his works that; he wants
to deal solely with the relationship between
text and author.
So, this is what this essay entirely talks
about the relationship between the text and
the author; what happens to the author in
the contemporary, when the ideas of text and
the ideas of author had then undergoing a
radical change.
And this he proposes to do in a particular
way ah to in his own words with the manner
and in which the text points to this figure
that at least in appearance is outside it
and antecedes it.
So, here he is drawing our attention to some
of the traditional conceptions about the author
and the traditional ways in which the author
is located outside the text and also in antecedence
to it, but; however, eventually we would also
see that ah Foucault's essay moves away from
this traditional assumption and totally challenges
the frame works within which the traditional
assumptions have been ah built with it and
he also very effectively uses beckets question
right at the outset what does it matter who
is speaking someone said what does it matter
who is speaking and he says that it is in
this indifference about the author authorial
voice that our understanding of the fundamental
principles of writing relies and here he also
begins to locate two major themes of contemporary
writing.
Firstly, he says that in the contemporary
writing has freed itself from the necessity
of expression.
So, here there is a very succeed way by which
he removes the text from the author by removing
the elements of expression from the idea of
writing itself.
And secondly, he engages with the idea when
the relationship between writing and death
he also discusses this ah quite at length
giving it a more historical perspective he
talks about how in the western cultural history
writing had always been associated with the
immortality he gives the examples of the ancient
Greek masters he also then compares the traditional
western notion of the of the act of writing
being associated with immortality and then
he also goes on to contrast the idea of modern
writing with that of the traditional, western,
cultural history where the idea of writing
was always associated with immortality.
He says that in modern writing perhaps the
intention is to kill the author, because the
process of writing is also linked to sacrifice
of life and he gives the examples of Flaubert,
Proust and Kafka who according to him had
successfully faced the writing subjects individual
characteristics; and it is very useful to
remember that these same examples and these
same imitates were used by Barthes; so this
connection also provides us a useful enter
point to talk about the various ways in which
the author had been relegated into the background.
If we take a look at Foucault's essay, he
may also realise that Foucault's is in some
way or the other trying to draw our attention
to the existing writings.
The existing theories about the death of the
author or the disappearance of the author
and trying to tell us how his essay departs
from this?
How his essay takes off from where perhaps
Barthes had left it.
For example, to in his own words he talks
about none of this is recent criticism and
philosophy took note of the disappearance
or death of the author some time ago, but
the consequences of it discovery of it have
not been sufficiently examined.
So, this is the starting point this is the
entry point towards Foucault's discussions
about the author.
Here he is drawing attention to the fact that
they are already familiar with the death of
the disappearance of the author, but what
happens after this seems to be primarily concerned
of Foucault's essay, because in this context
that Foucault's seems to examine two major
notions which we shall be taking a look at
shortly.
So, in order to engage with the consequences
and the implications of the death or the disappearance
of the author; Foucault draws our attention
to two major notions the first one being the
idea of the work; which he designates as oeuvre
it could also mean the the entire body of
the work that the writer has produced and
he engages secondly, with the notion of writing
which for which he uses this French term ecriture.
Interestingly, Foucault does not use the term
le ecriture which is more feminine in nature
and within these two works within these two
notions he tries to situate the significance
of many of the things that he proposes to
discuss in connection with the author.
When he talks about the notion of work he
begins by problematising the idea of work
and he also tells us that just like the; the
idea of the author has been problematised
it is more it is equally important to problematise
the idea of work itself.
When he seeks to problematise the idea of
work he gives us a particular examples and
in his own words, even when an individual
has been accepted as an author we must still
ask whether everything that he wrote said
or left behind is part of his work here he
is asking a seemingly simple question; what
is work?
What constitutes work rather?
And he says this is both the theoretical and
technical problem and he goes on to give an
example of Nietzsche's works and and and leads
us with the series of questions about what
exactly could be designated.
What exactly can qualify as Nietzsche's works
proper; and he asks these questions is it
everything that Nietzsche's himself published
and what about the rough drafts for his works.
The plans for his aphorism, the deleted passages
and notes at the bottom of the page, if we
answer an affirmative to all of these questions;
now Foucault has another set of questions
to ask us in connection with whether those
sort of things would be considered as part
of Nietzsche's work.
For example, what if within a workbook filled
with aphorisms one finds a reference the notation
of a meeting or of an address or a laundry
list is it a work or not why not.
So, by problematising this he is also giving
us a way a technique in order to engage with
the familiar things by asking such inconvenient
questions which would also help us to look
for the possible answers in perhaps unlikely
pleases.
So, here we can even say that ah Foucault
is beginning to deconstruct the idea of work;
in order to be able to engage with the author
in a much different way then commonsate has
been then common sense had created the author
to be and and he says these sort of works
these sort of questions could perhaps go on
and sums up that passage by saying it is not
enough to declare that we should do without
the writer or the author and study the work
itself.
The word work and the unity that it designates
are probably as problematic as the status
of the author's individuality.
So, here we we can even say that Foucault
is taking a few steps more from Barthes text
from Barthes work the death of the author
by problematising not just the idea of the
author, but also engaging with what exactly
the work is how what what constitutes work;
what kind of work is really qualified; what
kind of writing; what kind of product gets
qualified as a work.
Secondly he deals with a notion of writing
and when he talks about the notion of writing
he also tells us that it runs the risk of
maintaining the author's privileges under
the protection of the a priori.
He also tells us about a dividing line that
access between those who believe that they
can still locate discontinuities in the hisorico-transcendental
tradition of the 19th century and those who
try to free themselves once and all from that
tradition do exists.
So, it is within such inherent contradictions
within these inherent shifts in understanding
within these paradoxes about the understanding
of text and writing that; Foucault tries to
engage with the question of the author and
all of these elements according to him is
rather quite interconnected, and it is also
instrumental in providing a more fruitful
analysis of all of these common plays terms.
And now we we move on to the major part of
the essay the cracks of the essay what is
an author?
Here Foucault is drawing our attention to
what happens after the death of the author.
We did look at some of the implications of
the death of the author when we when we were
discussing Barthes essay, but here Foucault
is drawing Foucault is drawing a more focused
attention from our what exactly happens right
after the death of the author in his own words
he says it is not enough; however, to repeat
the empty affirmation that the author has
disappeared for the same reason; it is not
enough to keep repeating that god and man
had died a common death instead we must locate
the space left empty by the authors disappearance
follow the distribution of gaps and breaches
and watch for the openings this disappearance
uncovers.
So, though even though the starting point
of Foucault's essays about the disappearance
or death of the author he is more concerned
not with this act of disappearance not with
act of death, but with the space or with the
openings and the gaps which are left open
after the disappearance of the author and
this is here Foucault also drawing our attention
to the fact that there are certain other things
to be uncovered after the death of the author
or after the disappearance of the author as
he puts it.
So, Foucault Foucault wants us to do a series
of things after having pronouncing the death
of the author yeah.
Firstly, we must locate the space left empty
by the authors disappearance this is also
with the with the with the conviction that;
there is a particular space that the author
had been occupying and perhaps; there are
many things there are many subtexts there
are many sub conscious elements which are
which which have been lying underneath.
Secondly, to watch for the openings that this
disappearance uncovers and, then we move on
to discuss something very important about
the dis about the problems arising from using
the authors name and he tells us about the
authors name and how it functions and in this
connection he also tells us that his intention
is to not to offer solutions, but to discuss
the difficulties.
So, we too have a rather challenging task
ahead considering that Foucault's attempt
is not to Foucault's intention is not to give
a solutions to this questions; what is an
author; rather he tries to problematic it
he also tries to engage with this question
from multiple angles and also discuss the
various difficulties, which are inherent in
this idea of the author and in the discussions
about; what happens after the death of the
author.
And in this connection the first and foremost
thing that he highlights is the presence of
an author's name as a proper name, because
the first and foremost the authors name is
also almost always a proper name for example,
a name like Aristotle which has more functions
other than merely indicative functions also
equivalent of a description in in Foucault's
own words when one says Aristotle one employs
the word; that is the equivalent of one or
a series of definite description such as the
author of the analytics the founder of ontology
and so, forth.
One cannot stop there; however, because a
proper name does not have just one signification
and he goes on to say the proper name and
the authors name are situated between the
two poles of description and designation they
must have a certain link with what they name,
but one that is neither entirety in the mode
of designation nor in that of description
it must be a specific link.
Here, it is also useful for us to locate the
ways in which Foucault is building up his
argument the way he pays attention to details
and and also how he deconstructs those details,
how he reads the text against itself and challenges
the common sense understandings to lead us
to a totally different idea totally different
opposing rather a contrasting idea; which
would challenge not just the existing idea,
but also the existing paradox the existing
schools of thought the existing practices
of literary criticism itself having said that,
he also draws our attention to talk about
the various complexities involved even within
the idea of the authors name as just a proper
name to read Foucaults own words.
If I discover that Shakespeare was not born
in the house, we visit today this is a modification
that; obviously, will not alter the functioning
of the authors name, but if we prove that
Shakespeare did not write those sonnets, which
pass for his that would constitute a significant
change and affect the manner in, which authors
name functions if we prove that Shakespeare
wrote bacons organon by showing that the same
author wrote both the works of bacon and those
of Shakespeare that would be a third type
of change that would be entirely modify the
functioning of the authors name the authors
name is not therefore, just a proper name
like the rest.
So, here as a first step Foucault is differentiate
differentiating between the authors name from
the other proper names there the authors name
is not like any other proper name and here
he is also in his own words talking about
the paradoxical singularity of the authors
name and then highlights the fact that the
authors name unlike an any other proper name
it performs a certain role with regard to
narrative discourse assuring a classificatory
function.
So, what makes an author's name different
from any other proper name is that; there
are particular functions assign to sit.
There are particular roles that these authors
name perform the sort of roles that, we do
not expect any other proper name to perform
and here in continuation with the way in which
he problematise the idea of work he further
complicates and problematise.
The idea of the author the idea of the authors
name and goes on to argue and quick categorically
state that in a civilization like our own
there are a number of discourses endowed with
the author function while others are deprived
of it.
So, here we enter our critical point in this
essay where he begins to talk about the functions
of the author or the author function and here
he also gives a simple examples to show how
the author function differ author function
could be differentiated from the other proper
names.
For example, a private letter may well have
a signer it does not have an author a contract
may well have a guarantor it does not have
an author an anonymous text posted on a wall
probably has an editor, but not an author
the author function is therefore, characteristic
of the mode of existence circulation and functioning
of certain discourses within a society.
Here we notices how Foucault begins to unpack
the idea of the author and locates particular
functions with regard to the role he performs
in different contexts in different societies,
how that is related to circulation how that
is related to mode of existence it is materiality
and how it is varies from culture to culture.
So, as we begin to wind up the essay for today
it is also important to draw attention to
the ways in which Foucault takes off from
Barthes essay takes off from the traditional
assumptions of the author and moves away from
the things that ah traditionally have been
associated with the author to unpack the common
sense associated with the author to talk about
particular functions related to the author
or associated with the author.
So, in the next session we shall be continuing
to take a look at this essay taking a look
at how the author function is a getting employed
and how Foucault uses this to poststructuralist
as well as postmodernist ends which would
also become handy in our in our understanding
of postmodernism in literature.
In general, I also encourage you to take the
look at the original version of the essay
and also use this lecture as a corollary to
your original understanding.
Thank you for listening and I look forward
to seeing you in the next session .
